Denton TapL2/SP-AG000912 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: September 12, 2000 ITEM
ITEM CAPTION:
Consider approval of the Everybody Fits, Site Plan, to allow the (completion) of construction of an indoor
sports/recreation center located on approximately 4.5 acres of property on North Texas Court, west of N.
Denton Tap Road.
.... APPROVED
SUBMITTE ary L. ~..~.:', ?. ~V- 5 ........ ! ~- .~
TITLE.~ D,~.ect_~.r_of P-4a~ing and Community Services
STAFF COMMENTS:
Date of P&Z Meeting: August 17, 2000
Decision of P&Z Commission: Approved (6-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark,
Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed.
Approval is recommended, with no conditions:
Staff recommends approval.
DIR. INITIALS: ~ FIN. REVIEW:~[~ CITY MANAGER REVIEW: (~
Agenda Request Form - l~evised 5.-"00 Document Name: :gEve~'bF
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: EVERYBODY FITS, SITE PLAN
P & Z HEARING DATE: August 17, 2000
C.C. HEARING DATE: September 12, 2000
LOCATION: North Texas Court; west of N. Denton Tap Road.
SIZE OF AREA: Approximately 4.5 acres of property, containing 73,000 square feet
on two floors (50,000 square feet on first floor).
CURRENT ZONING: C (Commercial)
REQUEST: Site Plan approval.
APPLICANT: Brian Kennedy Mark Wainscott
Everybody Fits, LP Wainscott and Assoc., Architects
149 Cottonwood Drive 4815 Keller Springs
Coppell, Texas 75019 Addison, Texas 75001
(972) 393-1272 (972) 447-9119
Fax: (972) 393-1272 Fax: (972) 447-9110
HISTORY: There is a long history on this parcel that started when it was platted
in June of 1998. The Board of Adjustment granted a special
exception and allowed 116 parking spaces. Shortly at~er Board
action, construction began on what xvas then known as the North
Texas Gymnastics facili~', and over the next two years intermittent
construction proceeded on site. There xvere several interruptions in
building progress and for many months there was no construction at
all. The City became concerned w4th the facility, and in the summer
of 2000 started condemnation proceedings to have the building
demolished. During these proceedings we were advised that the
building had been sold, the new owner was interested in completing
the structure, and this application to renew the site plan was
submitted.
TRANSPORTATION: Denton Tap Road is a P6D, six-lane divided concrete roadway built
to standard in a 110 foot right ofway. ATTACHED TO
C.C. PACKET
Item # 9 ~.7/~,~ _~,~
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- developing retail center; "C", PD 178
South - Albertson's center; "C" Commercial
East - restaurant and grocery store; "TC" Town Center
West - single family; SF- 12
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for
neighborhood retail.
DISCUSSION: There are not a whole lot of technical comments to be made regarding this
application. Basically, as outlined in the History Section of this report, the
request here is to finish a project which has already been through the public
heating process before the Planning Commission and City Council. What is
being considered is identical to what was already approved and was being
constructed on site.
That being the case, staff has very few comments to make. Our concerns are
basically detailed in nature, and relate to things like making sure all drawings
match from one sheet to the other. We do request submission of a color
board acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant has
agreed to provide the board and it will be shown at the Commission hearing.
We have been advised by the new owner of this land that there may be some
future alterations to what has already been approved (such as additional uses,
more parking, etc.), as he gets more into the project, but he recognizes that
any major change will require an amendment to this plan and additional
public hearings.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Because this application is attempting to finish a project that has already been
through the public hearing process, staff supports this request. Were it not for
the fact that this site plan was approved over two years ago, and the fact that
the Ordinance specifies a site plan is valid for only two years (Section 39-2-
4), construction could begin immediately. Because the Building Official has
interpreted the Ordinance to require a new site plan, we have this application
before us. Since it is identical to the earlier approved plan, staff recommends
approval of this re-submittal. Positive action on the part of the Planning
Commission and City Council will result in a finished project on a parcel of
land that has generated more negative comment over the last fe~v months
than any other project in recent development history. Staff recommends
approval of this request as (re)submitted, xvith the addition of a color board to
be introduced at the Planning Commission meeting.
ATTACHED TO
C.C. PACKET
Item # 9
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:
1) Landscape Plan
2) Tree Survey
3) Site Plan
4) Floor Plan (first floor)
5) Floor Plan (second floor)
6) Elevations
ATTACHED TO
C.C. PACKET
Item # 9