Sandy L Add(1)/PP-CS 901018P & Z HEARING DATE:
C. C. HEARING DATE:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
RIVERVIEW PLAZA - PRELIMINARY PLAT
October 18, 1990
November 13, 1990
LOCATION:
Subject parcel is situated at the southwest corner of
Coppell Road and Coppell Road; approximately 850 feet
of S.H. 121.
east
SIZE OF AREA: 1.015 Acres
REQUEST:
Approval of a preliminary plat.
APPLICANT:
Gary Sanford
224 Hurstview
Hurst, Texas 76053
(817) 268-0917
Engineer
Lou Horne Engineering
11225 Garland Road, Suite 102
Dallas, Texas 75218
(214) 324-3435
HISTORY:
City Council had previously granted approval of a final
plat on this site in 1986. The plat was never filed with
the County, and is now considered null and void. The
applicant was required to reapply for consideration of
final plat approval.
TRANSPORTATION:
Although the portion of Coppell Road south of this tract is
proposed to be a four lane undivided thoroughfare, this
part of the street is not on the thoroughfare plan.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - Vacant, Flood Plain Land, Zoned
East - Vacant, Zoned (A)
South - Vacant, Zoned (LI)
West - Mobile Home Park, Zoned (C)
ITEM 7
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Plan shows this land being utilized for highway
oriented commercial uses.
ANALYSIS:
This plat is similar to the plat submitted by the same
applicant and owner four years ago. There are three major
differences:
1) A significant decrease in the total square footage of
the buildinq - Original plan indicated 18,000 square
feet - the new plat shows 4500 square feet.
2) A, reduction in the overall height of the building -
The applicant had originally requested approval of a
five story office building. The new request is for
three stories; but is not to exceed the 37 feet
maximum height requirement.
3) Deletion of screening wall alon~the western property
line - A mobile home park is located along the west
side of this property, although the current zoning
classification is (C) Commercial. Because the mobile
home park was in place prior to a permanent zoning
classification being placed on the property, the
mobile home park is considered as a non-conforming
use. Therefore, a screening wall is not required to
be constructed between the two properties.
Because this plat is less intensive than the one
submitted in 1986, staff is inclined to recommend
approval. Two concerns have surfaced, however, and
need to be resolved before approval is recommended by
Commission.
One, parking shown on the plat does not meet
requirements of the ordinance. Two, the 5%
landscaping provision should be carefully analyzed to
insure the spirit, as well as the letter of the
landscaping requirements are met.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the preliminary plat
2) Deny the preliminary plat
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Preliminary Plat
RVWPSTF