Kimbel Addn L8-12R-CS070419CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Case: Kimbel Addition, Lots 8R, 9R, lOR, 12R and 14R, Replat
P&Z HEARING DATE: April 19, 2007 (Denied on March 15, 2007, prior to
consideration, due to postponement of rezoning request)
C.C. HEARING DATE: May 8, 2007
STAFF REP.: Marcie Diamond, Assistant Planning Director
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Sandy Lake Road & MacArthur Blvd.
SIZE OF AREA: 2.9 acres of property
CURRENT ZONING: C (Commercial)
REQUEST: Replat approval to establish fire lanes and easements to allow
for the redevelopment of this property for new retail
development.
APPLICANT:
Alen Hinckley
Yorkshire West Realty Advisors, LP. Inc.
12201 Merit Drive, Suite 170
Dallas, TX 75251
(972)720-9300
FAX: (972) 991-7500
Engineer:
Michael Doggett
Winkelmann & Associates, Inc
6750 Hillcrest Plaza Drive, Ste. 100
Dallas, Texas 75230
(972)490-7090
FAX: (972) 490-7099
ITEM # 13
Page 1 of 3
HISTORY: The original plat for the Kimbel Addition was approved in 1977. In 1992
the northern portion of the original plat was replatted to allow for the
extension of Village Parkway and the construction of Lakeside Elementary
School. The eastern portion of the plat was vacated, where Lakewood
Estates subdivision exists.
TRANSPORTATION: MacArthur Blvd. and Sandy Lake Road are six-lane divided
thoroughfares, which are built to standard.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North -vacant land and Lakeside Elementary School; MF-2 (Multifamily-2)
South- Universal Academy and vacant retail; PD-97-R (Planned Development 97-
Retail)
East - Landscape nursery and City water facility; R (Retail) and MF-2
(Multifamily-2)
West - Kroger; C (Commercial)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Coppell Comprehensive Master Plan shows the property
as suitable for Neighborhood Retail uses.
DISCUSSION: While plats. are normally straight forward, this, as with the rezoning request,
is problematic. The purpose of this replat is to reconfigure the eight existing
rectangular lots into five irregularly-shaped lots in various sizes to
accommodate this development. It appears that there will still be five
owners after development; hence, the number of individual lots. It must be
noted that if this property were one lot, several of the site
planning/landscaping issues could more adequately addressed.
Technical issues with this Replat include:
• Building setback lines are requested to be established, which violate the
setback requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. These setback lines also
do not reflect the building setbacks as indicted on the PD Site Plan.
• Fire lanes do not meet minimum radii, however, various concessions
have been made to allow for adequate fire protection.
Preliminary Grading Plan
}~ nn 1 D .. .] }~ F 1 AD ..L. ,...1.~ ,1..,.:~ .. ..aL ..~.] ,__a a_ aL_
ITEM # 13 Page 2 of 3
• Contact Larry Redick at (972) 323-8917 to discuss electric easement
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Since staff is recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request, we are also
recommending DENIAL of this Replat.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Replat
ITEM # 13 Page 3 of 3
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Case No.: PD-223-C and S-1114-C, Kimbel Addition
P&Z HEARING DATE: April 19, 2007, (Postponed on March 15, 2007, prior to
consideration, per the applicant's request)
C.C. HEARING DATE: May 8, 2007
STAFF REP.: Marcie Diamond, Assistant Planning Director
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Sandy Lake Road & MacArthur Blvd.
SIZE OF AREA: 2.9 acres of property
CURRENT ZONING: C (Commercial)
REQUEST: Zoning change to allow the construction of two retaiUmedical
buildings, a bank, the retention of an existing take-out
restaurant (5-1114-C, Papa John's) and a portion of an existing
retail structure, totaling 25,245-square-feet, and to allow a
reduction in landscaped areas, required setbacks, alternative
signage colors, sizes and locations and other deviations from
the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
APPLICANT:
Applicant:
Alen Hinckley
Yorkshire West Realty Advisors, LP, Inc.
12201 Merit Drive, Suite 170
Dallas, TX 75251
(972) 720-9300
FAX: (972) 991-7500
Engineer:
Michael Doggett
Winkelmann & Associates, Inc
6750 Hillcrest Plaza Drive, Ste. 100
Dallas, TX 75230
(972) 490-7090
FAX: (972) 490-7099
ITEM # 12
Page 1 of 7
HISTORY: In November 1994, Council approved S-1085 to allow for the expansion of
Gloria's Pizza, whose initial restaurant pre-dated the requirement for an
SUP. This restaurant has since relocated to another retail center in Coppell,
thus allowing for the partial demolition of this retail building. 5-1114 for
Papa John's was approved in December 1996. This existing take-out only
pizza establishment (with no drive-thru) was constructed soon after the
adoption of the CIVIC Report, but prior to the codification of the
recommendations for colors and materials of attached signs; however, the
design, materials and colors of the building and the monument sign were
compliant with those recommendations.
TRANSPORTATION: MacArthur Boulevard and Sandy Lake Road are six-lane divided
thoroughfares, which are built to standard.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North -vacant land and Lakeside Elementary School; MF-2 (Multifamily-2)
South- Universal Academy and vacant retail; PD-97-R (Planned Development-97-
Retail)
East - Landscape Nursery and City water facility; R (Retail) and MF-2
(Multifamily-2)
West - Kroger; C (Commercial)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Coppell Comprehensive Master-Plan shows the property
as suitable for Neighborhood Retail uses.
DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a revised sign package. The other exhibits have
not been revised. The revisions to this staff report are noted as follows:
additions are double underlined and
While the community would benefit economically from the redevelopment
of this corner, the fact that this property is in a Primary Image Zone and an
important retail intersection, it is not in the best interest of the community to
support a development which te~}1-y disregards Zoning Ordinance
requirements as they relate to minimum building setbacks, landscaping
requirements, sand colors of attached signage, location, size and types of
monument signs, and a number of other development guidelines. If this
plan is approved, as submitted, it would essentially render the enforcement
of the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance on future development or
redevelopment projects difficult, at best.
In short, this plan complies with few requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant is requesting that these deficits be cured through PD
conditions. The amount and severity of variances required per lot and per
building are too numerous to detail in this staff report, but they are specified
in various tables on the Site and Landscape Plans submitted by the
ITEM # 12 Page 2 of 7
applicant, although there are inconsistencies with the data within the tables
and what is shown on the Landscape Plan. The following is a detailed
analysis of variances (PD Conditions) requested for the CVS lot, which are
typical of those requested on the other lots. Following that analysis are
summaries of the issues with the other lots.
CVS (Lot l OR) -proposed 12,900-square-foot retail store.
PD Conditions -variances requested:
• Reduction in the side yard setback from 30 to 10 feet.
• Providing only 14% of the required landscaping. Specifically,
19,419-square-feet of landscaped area is required, only 2,685-
square-feet is being provided, which includes deficits in:
o Number, size and location of landscape islands within the
parking lot.
o Provision of three- and six-foot wide perimeter landscaped
buffers adjacent to Sandy Lake and MacArthur (both Primary
Image Zones), where 15-foot-wide buffers are required, and
no perimeter landscaping is being provided adjacent to
internal property lines, where 10-foot-wide buffers are
required.
o No landscape screening hedge being provided adjacent to the
parking spaces along Sandy Lake Road.
o Only 60-square-feet of the required 4,851-square-feet of non-
vehicular landscaping being provided.
• Proposed Attached Signage exceeds maximum permitted:
e Front elevation - 90-square-feet of signage allowed ~9-
110.34 square-feet being requested - °
~~
e Side Elevation - 135-square-feet permitted - ~5~-112
square-feet being requested °
o There will be 222.34 sauare-feet of attached siens (225
sauare feet of sienaQe is permitted based on the buildinu
frontage. and an
a Additiona141.38-square-feet of signage shown on the canopy
over the drive-through.
o Proposed signage is not compliant with colors regulated in
the Sign Ordinance (red versus white/ivory/black or other
neutral color), but could be approved as a PD Condition if
deemed appropriate.
• Proposed Monument Sign, not permitted by Sign Ordinance due to:
0 8' setback provided while 15' is required.
~ These conditions apply to all four monument signs being requested. Further, the bank lot is requesting two signs,
where only one sign would be permitted.
ITEM # 12 Page 3 of 7
0 63-square-foot sign requested and a maximum 40-square-foot
sign permitted.
o Individual tenant name plates for multi-tenant signs must be
of uniform size, color and font. The sign elevation indicates a
variety of sizes, colors and fonts.
monument signs
have been revised to be externally lit)
o The off-premise nature of this sign is also prohibited.
• Elevations
While the elevations of the building, specifically, the color of brick
field (main) brick versus the accent brick have improved since the
initial submission, it still appears not - to be compliant with the
following regulation in the Zoning Ordinance:
Exterior wall surfaces should consist of no more than three
colors --abase color, and/or a trim color, and/or an accent
color... Another color, other than a base color, shall be
permitted on up to only 5 percent of the surface area of any one
facade, and an accent color on up to only 1 percent of the
surface area of any one facade.. .
It appears that the accent color accounts for more than the 5% of the
facade. To be more architecturally compatible with similar
developments in Coppell, if the lighter brick is replaced with a
darker brick then white/ivory attached signs, which are compliant
with the Sign Ordinance, would be more visible.
Papa John Pizza (Lot 9R)
This existing restaurant is proposed to be retained. However, as part of this
PD, a drive-thru is requested to be added along the south side of the building
and the southern driveway onto MacArthur relocated, eliminating most, if
not all, of the landscaping that currently exists in front of the building. The
existing Papa John's monument sign, which currently complies with the
Sign Ordinance, will be replaced by a 64-square-foot,=~~, multi-
tenant, off-premise sign (on the bank lot), as described above.
Existing Retail Building (Lot 12R)
The applicant intends to demolish approximately 1,600-square-feet of the
existing concrete block and metal building and add adrive-thru lane
adjacent to the east side of the building. There is matured landscaping along
Sandy Lake Road and adjacent to the east property line. Per this plan,
approximately half of the landscaping along Sandy Lake Road will be lost
due to the relocation of the existing driveway and ALL of the landscaping
along the east side of the building will be destroyed to add this 10-foot-wide
drive-thru lane between the existing building and the retaining wall. The
functionality of this new drive-thru lane is also questionable.
New RetaiUMedical Building (Lot 14R)
This is proposed to be a 3,033-square-foot retail/medical building with 19
parking spaces. To support this size of building, side and rear yards have
ITEM # 12 Page 4 of 7
been reduced to 10 feet (from 30' and 20', respectively), parking space
depth to 17 feet and only 38% of the required landscaping is being provided.
Proposed Bank (Lot SR)
The Site Plan for the 4,200-square-foot bank with five drive-thru lanes
includes: a reduction in both front and reaz yazd setbacks; parking spaces
depth reduced to 16.5 feet, where 17' is the minimum, severe deficiencies in
landscaping, and two illegal monument signs. The drive-thru facilities are
planned to be adjacent and parallel to MacArthur Boulevard, which is also
not acceptable. Drive-thru facilities need to be sited so that visibility is
obscured from Primary Image Zones (MacArthur Boulevard). The
configuration of the bank Site Plan is inconsistent with banks approved in
Coppell. No elevations have been submitted for this bank; therefore, it
could not be approved as a Detail Plan.
OVERALL PLAN COMMENTS
• Staff is concerned with the potential conflicts, safety and
functionality of the area where the proposed drive-thru for Papa
John's, the double dumpster, CVS's double drive-thru for the
pharmacy, and the loading dock all converge.
• Standard pazking spaces aze required to be 19' in depth, but can be
reduced to 17' if 2' additional width in landscaping is provided
adjacent to the perimeter buffer azea. None of the parking spaces
comply with these minimum requirements.
• None of the fire lanes meet the radii requirements. m~3g-fie
. There are concessions being made by
the developer tl3at-13~Qt ~r° ^~a '~~° ^^~'et}~iss~ ^e~-~~er-t#e
which will allow for
adequate fire protection.
• I must be noted that if this propertv were one lot. some of the site
plannine/landscapinQfssues could addressed. however:
o the amount of landscaped areas beine provided is still
pproximately 1/3 of what would be reauired (40.046 sauaze
f reauired. 27.396 sauaze feet provided. calculated with
perimeter landscapine only beine reauired adiacent to
~treets~, however the tree count exceeds the minimum
reauired by 17: and
o my one monument sien would be permitted.
While staff would like the opportunity to be fully supportive of a
redevelopment plan for this very important intersection in our community,
this PD request disregards most of the development standards as codified in
the Zoning Ordinance for landscaping, setbacks, signage. There has been
ITEM # 12 Page 5 of 7
no apparent attempt to balance the deficits in the request with additional
amenities (i.e., ,controlled signage, etc.). The
applicant is simply over-building the site. Understanding that as our
community matures, redevelopment, both residential and non-residential,
some concessions may need to be made to support the economic health.
However, any benefit from the granting of this request would be obscured
by the disregard for the community standards and the ordinances in the City
of Coppell. This would be the new standard that future proposals would
refer to when referencing development guidelines.
ttached to this staff report is a memo from Jim Witt. City Manager. to
arv Sieb. Director of Planning. dated April 12. 2007 concerning this
proposed development. In that memo (which the manager states is uniauel.
he explains the dilemma we face when dealing with vacant structures.
potential redevelopment which will eliminate the evesore. vet at a price
which reflects a disregard for our development euidelines.
As he points out. the Citv has ma de a concerted effort to resolve our
concerns with this case. cond ucting s everal meetings with the applicant. to
n avail. He goes on to say that th e Council has discus sed the issue in
general terms and feels thi s proiec t warrants serious consideration as
submitted. The bottom line: should we ign re regulation s that have been
long term development stand ards for a
proiect that elimi nates an evesore
within the community? On one han _
d. development here over the last 20
years or so has adhered to the Zoning requirements and we have the city we
have today. Existing develop ments have followed those gu idelines. On the
other hand. the question rema ins: is t his proiect important e nough to ignore
those standards in the guest for red evelopment? In a pe rfect world. the
eveloper should abide by the rul es as we have stat ed in our staff
r commendation. As we all know. this is not a perfect world, and the
question to be addressed is to what ext ent to we ignore our g uidelines for the
e of development. That is a questi on the Commission must answer.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff is recommending DENIAL of PD-223-C and S-1114-C, Kimbel
Addition, due to the plan's disregard for even the minimum requirements for:
• Building Setbacks;
• Landscaping;
• Monument Signs;
• Attached Signs;
• ', and
• Overall aesthetics of this development.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
ITEM # 12 Page 6 of 7
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Memo from Jim Witt to Garv Sieb. dated April 12. 2007
2) Site Plan
3) Landscape Plan
4) Landscape Data Tables
5) Tree Survey and Mitigation Plan
6) Elevation of Existing Retail Building a portion of which to be retained (2 pages)
7) Elevation and Floor Plan of new retail building
~ Signage Package } evised Sinn Package (2 naQesl
9) Color Elevation of CVS
ITEM # 12 Page 7 of 7
T H E C 1 T Y O F
COPPELL
T ~~ o
F X ^ S , 9 9
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 12, 2007
TO: Gary Sieb, Director o
FROM: Jim Witt, City Manager
SUBJECT: Nort
During the past month, there has been an interest in the redevelopment of the northeast corner of
MacArthur and Sandy Lake at the Council level. Redevelopment of this blighted commercial area
is a new challenge for the city of Coppell, its staff, its Planning Commission, and its elected
officials.
In the meetings we have had with you and your staff, I have appreciated the operuless and
frankness that you have shown regarding this situation. I believe I speak for the Mayor and
Council when I say that we all realize that planning and development regulations are aimed at
achieving quality development for all of Coppell. In the case of the northeast corner of
MacArthur and Sandy Lake, redevelopment appears to have one last stumbling block, and that is
greenscape vs. parking.
As you and I have discussed we have attempted, both through the developer and CVS Pharmacy
representatives to try to reach some type of compromise. Unfortunately, we have not been able to
avert the showdown of greenscape vs. parking with regard to this development. The present
parking provided on the site, as verified by your staff, meets the requirements of the city of
Coppell Zoning Ordinance. Conversations with CVS indicate they in no way want to reduce the
number of parking spaces that are presently shown on the site plan. Therefore, no compromise
appears to be on the horizon regarding the additional greenscape needed or the sacrifice of the
parking slots that serve the CVS location.
I would say that the super majority of Council feels that in this particular instance, due to the
multiple property owner situation, the blighted conditions on the corner, and the longevity that
these conditions have persisted, that patience is not a virtue. They, as well as the Deputy City
Manager and I, feel that we should make every attempt to secure this proposed development,
which in the end would be in the best interest of the community.
Gary Sieb
April 12, 2007
Page Two
This does not include any compromise on issues of public safety, access, or other matters the
Planning and Zoning Commission feels are essential to maintaining consistency. We would hope
that through negotiation and communication, that some type of compromise could be reached on
the greenscape vs. parking issue. We realize that this is on the April l9 Planning Commission
agenda, and that this memo constitutes a unique addition to the Planning Commission packet.
Please advise the Commission that if they have any questions regarding this memo to direct them
to my office and talk to me directly or Deputy City Manager Clay Phillips.
JW:kb