Loading...
Park N Fly/PP-AG 940308AGENDA REQUEST FORM CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March S~ 1994 ITEM CAPTION: Consideration and approval of park 'N Fly, preliminary Plat, located along the northeast corner of Royal Lane and Cotton Road, at th~ request of Park 'N Fly. APPROVED BY . ~~,~') CITY COUNCIL' DATE .... ;~!~/!~'/.- SUBMITTED BY: Gary L. Sieb ~~~ TITLE: Dir. of Planning & Comm. Services INITIALS STAFF COMMENTS: Date of P&Z Meetinq: February 17, 1994 Decision of P&Z Commission: Approval (3-2) with Commissioners Alexander, Thompson and Meador voting in favor and Commissioners Wheeler and Tunnell voting for denial. Commissioners Hildebrand and Redford were absent. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval ~ EXPLANATION: See attachment for conditions of approval. Denial BUDGET AMT.$ ~Y~ FINANCIAL COMMENTS: AMT. EST.$ +/- BUD:$ FINANCIAL REVIEW: A~m~- R~W~t F0m - Re~d 1/94 CITY MANAGER REVI ~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION EXPLANATION: The following 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 11. 12. conditions for approval apply re Park 'N Fly, Preliminary_ Plat: Removal of the billboard on the southeast corner; required fire hydrants must be installed; six (6) inches of concrete must be used in the fire lanes; the drainage issue must be resolved before Final Plat is submitted; setbacks must be as shown on the plat; landscaping must conform to drawings; escrow agreements must be adhered to; obligations concerning the traffic light and access road to LBI Freeway as referred to in both the October 12, 1990, letter to Steve Goram from Kenneth R. Marshall, and your November 19, 1990, letter to Mayor Wolfe, must be recognized; pursue representation that this project will eventually become a hotel/office complex; the issue of the second billboard must be resolved before the Final Plat is submitted; the elimination of sidewalks; and the conditions of the Board of Adjustment approval must be met. CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE: Park'N Fly Addition, Preliminary. Plat P & Z HEARING DATE: February 17, 1994 C. C. HEARING DATE: March 8, 1994 LOCATION: Along the northeast comer of Royal Lane and Cotton Road SIZE OF AREA: 16.07 acres CURRENT ZONING: LI, Light Industrial Approval of a preliminary plat to construct a 1,941 space parking lot with a van service building and a two-story brick building with guard tower. APPLICANT: HISTORY: Bill Thompson (Owner) 8333 Douglas Ave. Suite 1510 Dallas, Tx. 75225 Park 'N Fly, Inc. fPro~tive Purchaser) Suite 207 Paran Place 2060 Mount Paran Road, N.W. Atlanta, Ga. 30327 (404) 264-1000 There has been quite a bit of history on this parcel since this proposal was initially submitted in July, 1993. On July 15, the Planning Commission denied the plat because it did not meet our minimum platting requirements. There were questions regarding minimal landscaping guidelines, questions regarding the thoroughfare plan, there were drainage, water, and sewer issues that had not been resolved, among others. On August 6, a Mr. Frederick Clemente (President of Park 'n Fly) addressed a letter to the Mayor expressing disappointment in the Item 14 Planning Commission's action (the "slanderous" letter), and indicated that the company was putting this project on the back burner until a later date. The request has been resubmitted at this date for reconsideration. At the December Planning Commission meeting, this plat was denied because the applicant did not meet the requirements of the landscaping section of the Zoning Ordinance, a requirement for plat approval. In a letter from the city attorney, the Commi~ion was advised that the applicant could approach the Board of Adjustment and request a variance from the landscaping requirements. Staff recommended the Commission deny the plat, instruct the applicant that a variance might be requested of the Board, and then resubmit the request to planning. When the motion was made, Commission instructed staff to resubmit this request for the February hearing, hence, this resubmittal. TRANSPORTATION: Royal Lane is designated as a P6D, six lane divided thoroughfare contained within a 100-110 foot right-of-way. Gateway Blvd. is a C4U, four-lane undivided road contained within 70 feet of right-of-way. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North - South - East West postal facility; LI vacant; city of Irving vacant; LI vacant; LI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Suggests highway oriented commercial as most appropriate land use for this site. ANALYSIS: In July of 1993, staff pointed out several concerns with this request including questions rega,-ding whether the proposal was reflecting the highest and best use of the property based on the Comprehensive Plan suggestions; the fact that the Thoroughfare Plan had been revised in 1991 to upgrade roads around this site in anticipation of a high-rise hotel locating on the site (as suggested by the land owner); landscaping did not meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code; there was a question regarding the practical tax revenue which would be generated by the site if improved with the parking lot; aesthetic concerns were expressed based on the "gateway" location into the City, the request to retain the non- conforming billboards, and absence of required brick pavers; technical elements regarding an initially planned asphalt parking lot, drainage concerns, lack of sidewalks, and extension of sewer/water lines. 2 Staff elaborated on each of the items in some detail and came to the conclusion that the plat should be denied for all of the stated reasons, but specifically because the applicant did not abide by the zoning and subdivision codes relative to platting. Of major concern was the fact that the application did not follow mandated landscaping requirements which clearly spelled out that a minimum of 10% of a parking lot area must be landscaped. Although the plat before you today is a vast improvement over the July submittal, several of staff's earlier concerns remain--the billboard's are still retained, we still question whether this proposal fits the use definition of the Master Plan, there is no indication on the plat of the size of the request, a note needs to be included indicating that the fire lanes will be constructed of 6 inches of concrete, and there are a host of *nit-picky~ corrections which need to be made to the submittal. In addition, this owner must contact the owner to his east (Catellus), and obtain permission to drain on to that property, parking lot surface elevations need to be provided, gm'delines contained within the Streetscape standards need to be honored, and escrow will be required for the portion of the property adjacent to Gateway Blvd. Perhaps most damaging to this proposal, however, is the fact that the plat still does not conform to the landscaping standards stated above and in the first review of this project. Although the applicant is to be recognized for showing landscaping in the parking lot, it does not conform to the minimum standards that staff conveyed to the owner in the form of a revised plan prior to submittal of this request and, as submitted, contains only 4.5 percent vegetation. Based on the fact that the application does not meet our code requirements, staff must recommend that this plat be once again denied--it does not meet our required minimums. As stated in the History section of this staff report, the applicant appeared before the Board of Adjustment on February 3, 1994, and addressed the landscaping concerns (a summary of the variance request is included as an attachment). At that meeting two plans were discussed, one which met our landscaping requirements, one which did not (both are included with this packet information). After considerable discn._~ion, the Board granted the following variances: reduced the landscaping requirement from 10% to approximately 6% which included additional center island landscaping as well as terminal island landscaping (see plan) reduced the mlmber of trees in the interior to 127 (from the required 163) and mandated that 36 additional trees be placed in the exterior areas 3 eliminated the minimnm 2 inch caliper tree size on the interior, but retained the provision that no tree less than 7 feet in height at initial planting be allowed, and all other trees meet the landscape guidelines granted a variance in parking space size to 9 feet by 18 feet; no more than 20% of spaces could be compact car size (8.5 feet by 15.5 feet) allowed a security fence (generally 6 foot, black or green vinyl coated chain link) along LBJ and Royal Lane frontages, generally 5 feet in front of the parking curbs. Staff stm has concerns regarding this proposal including the bmboard issue, it is questionable whether this application meets the land use envisioned in the Master Plan, it is not clear on the face of the plat where required fh-e hydrants 0 or 4) are located, f'n'e lanes must show 6 inches of concrete, drainage issues must be resolved, setbacks need to be clearly set by plat, the landscape plan submitted to Commission is different than the one submitted to the Board of Adjustment, and escrow will be needed for the portion of the property adjacent to Gateway Blvd. In addition, it should be stated that the current owner of the property had represented during the update of our Thoroughfare Plan in May of 1991 that he would pursue the installation of a traffic signal at Royal/Gateway, and negotiate with the State to include an on-ramp from Royal to LBJ. (see attached letters dated October 12, 1990, and November 19, 1990). Now that the use may change here, staff is confused regarding what follow thorough will occur with change in ownership. At the Board of Adjustment meeting representations were made that suggested this site will eventually be utilized for a high-rise hotel. The Thoroughfare Plan was amended to accommodate that use, hence, the comments regarding the Thoroughfare Plan. If the new owner plans to eventually build a hotel here, it would be prudent to determine some sort of time frame for development based on the owners track record, similar projects undertaken elsewhere, etc. l~mally, there is still a question in staff's mind regarding the use of this property as a parking lot unless there is some assurance that it is only a temporary use. The Board of Adjustment spent considerable time modifying the applicant's variance request to make the lot more appealing, yet the landscape plan submitted here is different from the one eventually approved by the Board. The Commission should make its recommendation based on a comfort level with what is proposed now, and what will ultimately occur on the ground. The bmboard question should be addressed, the appearance of the structures needs 4 to be clear (remember, at the f'wst hearing elevations and photographs of existing facilities were provided), recommended setbacks need to be specified on the plat document, the difference in the landscape plan needs to be rectified,as well as the other issues raised at the previous hearings. If there is any question regarding the clarity of the proposal, it should be denied, if not, approval would be in order. 1) Approve the Preliminary Plat 2) Deny the Preliminary Plat 3) Modify the Preliminary Plat ATTACHMENTS: 1) Variance Synopsis 2) Preliminary Plat 3) Landscape Plan 4) Marshall letter of October 12, 1990 ~) Thompson letter of November 19, 1990 6) Landscape required by ordinance 7) Landscape variance request 5 REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE/Section VARIANCE REQUESTED 34-1-8 (A) 10 percent of the gross parking areas shall be landscaped. 4.52 percent landscaped area is requested. 34-1-8 (A)2. One (1) tree shall be planted for every 400 s.f. of landscaping required above. 163 trees required. Request to reduce ratio to 127 trees~ 34-1-7 (B) Trees shall be a minimum height of seven feet and a minimum 2" caliper. Request to reduce caliper to less than 2" minimum. 34-1-8 (A) 3. Planting islands shall be provided at least every 12 parking spaces and at the terminus of each row. Request to reduce number of islands and eliminate end islands as shown on plan. 42-92 Parking spaces shall be not less than 180 s.f. (or approximately 9 feet by 20 feet. Request interpretation or variance. Section 9-2-6 (C) Fences may not be placed in a front yard. (60 feet or established by structure, whichever greater). Request variance to front yard fence requirements. Notes: Section 32-2 establishes a front yard along both LBJ and Royal. Section 26-4 provides that all parking be located at least 30 feet behind the front property line. Parking may be allowed 15 feet behind the front property line provided a landscape plan is submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission clearly indicating the parking front setback reduction. Section 33-1-8(F) requires the screen to be constructed of a masonry material compatible with the adjacent building in LI zoning, and Section 34-1-8(B) requires minimum 3 feet height. Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc. 5485 Belt Line Road, Suite 199 Dallas, Texas 75240 USA Phone: (214) 991-1900 Fax: (214) 490-9261 Metro: 263-9138 October 12, 1990 Mr. Steve Goram Director Public Works Department City of Coppell P.O. Box 478 Coppell, TX 75019 West Side Thoroughfare Plan Update BA No. 3311.01.07 Dear Mr. Goram: As a result of our meeting this morning with Mr. Bill Thompson, Mr. Weldon Davis, Ms. Shohre Daneshmand, yourself, and representatives from DeShazo, Starek & Tang, Inc., Albert H. Halff & Associates, Inc., and Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., ~ agreed to support th~_ installation 0~_ _a_~_~r~ig .... ~gnal ~whe~ warranted) ~ in~c%ion'-~f Royal Lane an~ Gatew_a~____B_09~eva~d iq conjunction w%th no~urn~ng movemen{~-~trictions and a ~stbound connection to th~ entrance ramp to IH-635, west of Royal Lane. This trafffc s~gnal will be controlled by the same signal hardware controlling the IH-635/Royal Lane interchange. At the same time, the City will pursue with the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation the construction of a connecting roadway between Gateway Boulevard and a frontage road along IH-635. The c~ombination of the traffic signal and the connecting roadway between Gateway Boulevard and IH-635 should allow the Ro~l/Gate~a_~ i~ersect~on to function at an acceptable level of service approximately until 2095. At this time, or at a time when the operation of thiS'intersection falls below a level of service "C", the ~%t~ will either close the ~dian opening at Royal and Gateway or implement a suitable alternative' improvement measure that will reme-d~ the unacceptable operation at this intersection. In the meantime, the City and property owners should consider the development of alternative solutions for this intersection in preparation for the time that it fails to operate acceptably. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call. Sincerely, Kenneth R.--Mar~hall7 P.E. Senior Associate The Honorable Mayor Mark Wolfe City of Coppell 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019 ROYAL IJ~E AMD GATEMAY BOULEVARD Dear Mayor Wolfe: In response to the October 23~ 1990 City Coppell's City Council Meeting referencing the requested revisions to the West Side Thoroughfare Plan Update, Thompson .Interests agr.ees to .i~r._~.*~....,.' the · "" .........Zrt~ties necessary approvals to improve ~cess ut she intersection of Royal LaCe"and "She' Gateway Boulevard. Thompson Interests w£11 p~ovide technical assistance through the services of DeShezo, & Tang, I.nc. (DS&T), transporation engineering consultants, to support the City of CopPelloS efforts to obtain preliminary approval of the improvements agreed to by the C~ty S~aff~ Barton Aschman and DS&T. DS&T will assist t~e C~Y in the develo~xoent of preliminary sGhemat~c &esigns ~]~d aid in the negotiation with Dallas/Port Worth Airport and the S~ate Department of Highways and Public Transporta~on. The development potential of the tr,~t a~ the Re,al Lane/Gateway corner is exciting both fro~ developer*s perspective and fro~ the City of CoPpelles perspective. I applaud yours and the City Council*s leadership in preserving the develolx0ent potential o~ the Gateway Corridor. FILE COP Sincerely, Thompson Interests WGT/pm ~EEQUIRED BY ORDINANCE with Mayor Pro Tem Robertson and Councilmembers Stahly, Watson, Reitman, and Mayo voting in favor of the motion and Councilmembers Weaver and Garrison voting against the motion. 15. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration and approval of Lakewood Estates Replat, Lots 1-15, Block D, located east of Village Parkway, along the north side of Basilwood Drive, at the request of Unzicker, Schnurbusch & Associates, Inc. Gary Sieb, Director of Planning and Community Services, made a presentation to the Council. Mayor Morton opened the Public Hearing and asked for those persons wishing to speak against this proposal. There were none. He then asked for those persons wishing to speak in favor of this proposal. Again, there were none. Mayor Morton then closed the Public Hearing. Waymon Lavell, Applicant, addressed the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Robertson moved to approve Lakewood Estates Replat, Lots 1-15, Block D, located east of Village Parkway, along the north side of Basilwood Drive, with the condition that the Lakes of Coppell Homeowners' Association will provide erosion repair for Lot 14R, Block D. Councilmember Mayo seconded the motion; the motion carded 7-0 with Mayor Pro Tem Robertson and Councilmembers Weaver, Stably, Watson, Reitman, Mayo, and Garrison voting in favor of the motion. Consent Agenda Items 21 A, B, C, D, H, I and J were considered at this time. See Items 21 A, B, C, D, H, I and J below for minutes. 16. Consideration and approval of Park 'N Fly, Preliminary Plat, located along the northeast corner of Royal Lane and Cotton Road, at the request of Park 'N Fly. Gary Sieb, Director of Planning and Community Services, made a presentation to the Council. Bill Dalstrom, representing the Applicant, addressed the Council and introduced Fred Clemente, President of Park 'N Fly, George Casey and Cecil Morton of Park 'N Fly. Kirk King, President of Coppell Chamber of Commerce, indicated the Chamber's support of this project. Ron Pankey addressed the Council in support of this item. Mayor Pro Tern Robertson moved to approve Park 'N Fly Preliminary Plat, located along the northeast comer of Royal Lane and Cotton Road with the following conditions: 1) removal of the billboard on the southeast comer be done at final plat; 2) required fire hydrants must be installed; 3) six (6) inches of concrete must be used in the fire lanes; 4) the drainage issue must be resolved before Final Plat is submitted; 6) landscaping must conform to drawings; 7) agreement to pay escrow prior to issuance of building permit or in opinion of City Engineer the road is ready to be developed; 8) obligations concerning the traffic light and access road to LBJ Freeway as referred to in both the October 12, 1990, letter to Steve Goram from Kenneth R. Marshall, and November 19, 1990, letter to Mayor Wolfe, must be recognized; 9) the issuance of the second billboard must be resolved before the Final Plat is submitted; 10) the elimination of sidewalks; 11) the conditions of the Board of Adjustment approval must be met; 12) to allow Applicant to forego the three-foot screening on Section 33 l(a)(f); and 13) that the building to be constructed at this time meet the Old Town criteria with plans being submitted to Council before final approval. Councilmember Reitman seconded the motion; the motion carried 7-0 with Mayor Pro Tern Robertson and Councilmembers Weaver, Stahly, Watson, Reitman, Mayo, and Garrison voting in favor of the motion. 17. Necessary Action resulting from Executive Session. There was no action under this item. CM030894 Page 5 of 9 CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT P & Z HEARING DATE: C. C. HEARING DATE: LOCATION: SIZE OF AREA: ZONING: REQUEST: APPLICANT: 4f's' Along the northeast comer of Royal Lane and Cotton Road LI, Light Industrial Approval of a preliminary plat to lot with a van service building and a guard tower. Bill Thompson (Owner) 8333 Douglas Ave. Suite 1510 Dallas, Tx. 75225 Park 'N Fly, Inc. (Prospective Purchaser) Suite 207 Paran Place l~' 2060 Mount Paran Road, N.W. /~ Atlanta, Ga. (404) 264-1000 There has been quite a bit of history on this parcel since this proposal was initially submitted in July, 1993. On July 15, the Planning Commission denied the plat because it did not meet our minimum platting requirements. There were questions regarding minimal landscaping guidelines, questions regarding the thoroughfare plan, there were drainage, water, and sewer issues that had not been resolved, among others. On August 6, a Mr. Frederick Clemente (President of Park 'n Fly) addressed a letter to the Mayor expressing disappointment in the HISTORY: Item 14'