Cpl Town Ctr/PP-CS 960611at the northeast corner 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 buil~ngs ~
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. If
restaurant usage of the proposed buiMings 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 prope~ owne~ can be chamcte~zed as resoling the p~v~e
interests of one prospecave ~owner venus the pdv~e intere~s of a
several other ~ndowne~, ~ the expense of the public integer. ~e C~
is charged w~h the task of uphoMing the public intere~ and, therefore,
staff is reluctant to see fuaher deg~on of the n~uml ~ndscape as
viewed from Denton Tap Ro~ and Sandy ~e Ro~.
Itemg 5