Loading...
CC approval-6-mo X to 6/10/06AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM CAPTION: CO??ELL DEPT: DATE ITEM Planning August 9, 2005 12 Consider approval of a one-year extension to the expiration date of the Mac krthur Vista Center, Lot 1, Block A, Site Plan, to allow the development of an approximate 10,048-square-foot o~fice/retail/medical building on 1.409 acres of property located along the east side of MacArthur Blvd., south of D APPROVED BY CITY COUNCII ON ABOVE DAli Motion to extension t~ approve GOAL(S): the conditions that the applic~ accordance with City Ordinam M - Peters S - Suhy Vote - 6-1 Tunnell voted against EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ~nton Creek. Jane 101 2006 subject to nt maintain the property in as. Libby Ball o5'o0' ted approval of this Site Plan (5-0). On xing opposed. On August i0, 2004, date of this Site Plan to December 10, Cest Realty Advisors, Ltd., dated July >er 10, 2006. Date of P&Z Meeting: N/A Decision of P&Z Commission: N/A On November 21, 2002, the Planning Commission unanimously recommem December 10, 2002, Council approved this Site Plan (6-1). Councilman He Council unanimously approved a one-year extension, moving the expiration 2005. Please see attached correspondence from Alen Hinckley, Yorkshire ~ 25, 2005. If this request were approved, the Site Plan would expire Decem Staff recommends DENIAL of this request. Although we routinely recommend approval of six-month and one-year ext~ request is excessive and does not merit favorable consideration based on the · A one-year extension was granted a year ago and no tangible effort has ] · If this extension were granted, the Site Plan would be up to four years ol twice as long as provided for in the Zoning Ordinance. · The Comprehensive Plan of May 1996 shows the property as suitable fc proposed office/medical/retail uses are inappropriate for this property. · This proposed development drew strong opposition from residents of L, attached correspondence in opposition). · Council approval of this Site Plan was subject to the provision of a six-f property line of this tract, adjacent to the residential development, as ret However, the applicant received BOA relief from this requirement and ~ along this property line. Since these actions, the Prestwick subdivision nsions to site plans, this particular following: ~een made towards development. d at the time of construction, which is r residential uses; therefore, the ke Park and The Peninsulas (see >ot solid screening wall along the east uired in the Zoning Ordinance. ?ill only be providing landscaping has been built-out, and those residents, who will also be impacted by the construction of the proposed 10,000-S~luare-foot building on this site, did not have an opportunity to provide their input on this granted variance. Staff recommends DENIAL of this extension request. When the property oCner is ready to develop, Site Plan review process can be initiated at that time. i Agenda Request Form - Revised 02/04 ~ocument Name: ~3MacA Vista SPX I-AR Sent By: INVESTMENTS; 972 991 7500; Jul-26-15 2:29P~1; / YORKSHIRE WEST REALTY ADVISORS, LTD 12201 MERIT DRIVI[, SUr'l'~ 1 '70 Page 2/3 July25,2005 Ms. Marcie Diamond City of Coppell 255 Parkway Blvd. Coppcll. Texas 75019 RE: 1VIACARTHUR VISTA CENTER LOT 1, BLOCK A SITE PLAN EXTENSION Dear Maxcie: Due to the significant construction along MacAxlhur Boulevard sou h darough both Sandy Lake and Beltline intersection, we are requesting a one (1) year e: tension on the Detail SitePlan for the MacArthur Vista Center Project, located at 670 N. VlacArthur. The Site Pla~ was previously approved at the City Council hearing on December l l, 2002, and by the Board of Adjustment on August 7, 2003. Ihe ~pproved Site Plan is attached. The owner anticipates commencing construction in the Spnng of 20 Please notil'y mc of thc City Council hearing date so [ may attend. qoestions, I can be reached at (972) 720-9300 x 107. Yours truly, Senior Vice President attachment VIA FAX & U.~. MAIL )6. Should you have any Sent By: INVESTMENTS; 972 991 7500j Jul-26-~5 2:2gPM; Page 3/3 , I-I illll' Id 11 AGENDA REQUEST FORM COFFELL DE?T~: flannin8 DATE: August 10, 2004 ITEM #: 18 ITEM CAPTION: Consider approval of a one-year extension to the expiration date of the MaqArthur Vista Center, Lot 1, Block A, Site Plan, to allow the development of an approximate 10,048-square-foot 0ftice/retail/medical building on 1.409 acres of property located along the cast side of MacArthur Blvd., south of Denton Creek. GOAL(S): IIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Date of P&Z Meeting: Decision of P&Z Commission: N/A N/A On November 21, 2002, the Planning Commission unanimously recommen4ted approval of this Site Plan (5-0). On December 10, 2002, Council recommended approval of this Site Plan (6-1) Councilman Herring voted against the Plan. Please see attached correspondence from Alert Hinckley, Univest Propertie~, Inc., Trustee, dated July 22, 2004. If this request were approved, the Site Plan would expire December 10, 2005. Staff recommends approval. APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON ABOVE DATE Motion! to Approve with subject to the Condition that the Applicant maintains the property. M - Tu0nell - Railnes ore - 6-0 York absent Agenda Request Form - Revised 02/04 DOcument Name: .W~,l I MacA V sta SPX -AR UNIVEST ?ROPERTIES, INC., TIRUSTEE 12201 MERIT DRIVE, SUITE 17Q DALLAS, TEXAS 75251 July 22, 2004 Ms. Marcie Diamond City of Coppel[ 255 Parkway Blvd. Coppell, Texas 75019 RE: MACARTHUR VISTA CENTER LOT 1, BLOCK A SITE PLAN APPROVAL Dear Marcie: VIA ItAND DELIVERY & U.S. MAIL Due to the increased vacancies in the market and slow absdrption, 'we requesting are a one (1) year extension on the Detail Site Plan tbr the Mac~rthur Vista Center Project, located at 670 N. MacAtlhur. The Site Plan was previously approved at the City Counci 2002. and b) the Board of Adjustment on August 7, 2003. altached. ]'he o;vner anticipates completing the Center m the near ful Tenants to benefit thc community. Please notify' me of the City' Council heatlog date so Inlay al questions, I can be reached at (972) 991-4600 x 107. Yours truly, Alan Hincklcy Senior Vice President attachment hearing on December 11, The approved Site Plan is are and bringing in quality tend. Should you have any COl'FELL August 8, 2003 Mr. Alen Hinckley Univest Properties, Inc. Suite 170 12201 Merit Drive Dallas, TX 75251 Dear Mr. Hinckley: The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, August 7, 2003, and heard yoffr request for a variance from Sections 12-33-1(1) ~d 12-33-1(8) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at 670 N. MacAr[hur Blvd. in Coppell. The Board voted to grant your request for a variance to allow a landscape barrier, in lieu of the required 6-fi. masonry screening wall, along the east plroperty line adjacent to the residentially zoned property, with the provision that the landsk:aping be maintained in compliance with the City's current landscaping requirements. At your earliest convenience, you may return the Board of A~ljustment sign posted on this property, and your $100.00 sign deposit retired will be proce{sed You may return the sign to our office at 500 Southwestern Blvd. ~ If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (9~2) 304-3500. Sincerely, Chief Building Official G J/mbs AGENDA REQUEST FORM COPPELL DEPT: Planning & Economic Development DATEI December 10, 2002 ITEM gq 12 ITEM CAPTION: Consider approval of the MacArthur Vista Center, Lot 17 Block A, Site Plan~ to allow the development of an approximate 10,048 square-foot office/retail/medical building on 1.409 acre~ of property located along the east side of MacArthur Blvd., south of Denton Creek. GOAL(S): ~ Ill~ APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON ABOVE DATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: lMotion to Approve subj. to cond. 1, 2 & 3 M - York S - Roines Vote - 6-1 Herrin9 Against Date of P&Z Meeting: November 21, 2002 Decision of P&Z Commission: Approval (5-0) with Commissioners MdUaffrey, Kittrell, McGahey, Halsey and Foreman voting in favor. None opposed. Approval is recommended, subject to the following conditions: 1 ) A solid, minimum six-foot high masonry screening wall being cbnstmcted along the east property hne ofth~s tract, as reqmred by the Zomng OrdinanCe. (The Cornm~ss~on indicated support of Council's fencing option.) 2) The monument sign should identify the center itself as opposed tO individual tenants. 3) The dumpster enclosure abides by all zoning requirements. Staff recommends approval. DIR. REVIEW: ~ ~ Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/02 FIN. REVIEW: ~M REVIEW ~ ...... I~ocument Name: ~2MacAVistaSP I-AR ;ary Sieb - Attenbon Alt City Council Members RE: MacArthor Land Development , p~ge ~ I From: To: Date: Subject: <Ronssarason@aol.com> <citycouncil@ci.ceppell.tx. us> 12~5~02 8: 09PM Attention All City Council Members RE: MacArthor Land Development Deac Council Member: As a homeowner, living in Waterford at Lake Park, I am very concerned al~out the plans that have already been approved by the Coppell Planning and Z~ning Commission for the property accross from our subdivision's main entrancelon MacArthor. At the commission meeting held on November 21 st the development was listed as an "office building," but the site plans indicate that the developemnt is not an office building. The plans clearly show that the development is to be a strip center building, with a retail look. It has a plain facade and is out of charactor with the area. I request that the council return this item to the Planning and Zoning Commission and require that the proper notice be given, so concerns of th~ adjacent homeowners and home builders can be shared with the commission and the developer Thank you in advance for your consideration Ronald Sarason 619 Lake Park Drive Coppell, TX 75019 214-729-9229 November 26, 2002 Honorable Mayor Candy Sheehan and City Council Membe?s, On 10 Dec 2002 a site plan for the MacArthur Vista the City Council for approval. The notice in the Citizen Ad for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting listed thi~ building. In reviewing the site plan it is evident that the de building. The plans indicate the proposed uses for the build medical. The plans clearly show this development to be a s' Center will be brought before ~ocate and the Agenda Item development as an office ~elopment is not an office ing as retail, office and rip shopping center building having a very retail look with a linear design and storefront :loors and windows. From my perspective, there is nothing office-like about this struct ire. I feel very strongly that the Planning and Zoning notices on this development where misleading as they stated "office building" rather than a mix of retail and office space I ask the council to return this item to the Planning and Zoning Commission and requi"e that proper notice be given so that the concerns of adjacent homeowners can be shared with the commission and the developer. There have been several unsuccessful attempts by ci!y staffto rezone this parcel as residential. And while I supported these attempts past co the change. My interest in this matter is not to stop the dev{ interest is to see that this development compliments the resi, surround it. My neighbors and I have accepted the fact the: use would likely occupy this site. Cfiven the small size oft~ residential use we believe an office building to be the appro ~riate use ancils were unable to approve lopment of this land. My lential neighborhoods that ome kind of nonresidential e site and the adjoining for the site. Being familiar with the quality of recent office build I was pleased when I read the notice in the Citizen's Advoc~ being considered for this site. Upon reviewing the plans I the total lack of consideration the developer has given to the the mass, density and building style of the surrounding stm¢ arrangement of the building with the long expanse of standi~ character with the area. The building lines need to be broke ng developments in Coppell .te that an office building was ecame very disappointed at surrounding land use and to tures. The linear tg seam metal roof is out of up more and the roof material needs to be changed to a composition shingle to maltch the roofs in the surrounding developments. The building fagade is very plaib and not shown on the plans is the commercial signage that will undoubtedly be placed o~ the front of retail shops. The building must shed its strip center fagade by doing awa3{ with the storefront doors and windows and incorporating more inspired brickwork an~t ot,her architectural features. The plans must clearly show the size and location of the ten~ts signage. Also, since there is no other commercial type building in this residential!area the screening of the parking lot is a critical item. The screening plants shown in ~the plans are rarely maintained at the proper height and density to adequately so,ten the view of parked vehicles. A more appropriate method would be the use of a landscaped berm. I also believe the plans are deficient in that as a retai service drive and no place to accommodate delivery trucks. would have to park in the access drives. The parking desig~ spaces is within the 100-year flood plain and several other s lot and at the south end of the building do not have an area 1 center there is no rear As designed delivery trucks is deficient in that one of the ~aces at the north end of the o back a vehicle out of the space and mm it around. This condition will require vehicles to travel in reverse for an excess distance. A total of four spaces should be removed from the plan. Thank you for your time in considering this matter a~ad I look forward to working with the City Planning staff, and the Planning and Zoning C~mmission to make MacArthur Vista Center compliment the attractiveness ofth~ MacArthur gateway in to Coppell. Sincerely, 663 Glen Lakes Dr Coppell, Texas 75019 972-745-4684 cc: City Planning Dept, Gary Sieb l~¢cemher ~, 200? To Mayer Sheehan and Coppell Cit~ (.'ouncfl Members. My husband and I live in Waterford subdivision and we hav$ just learned that the development of the property across MacArthur Bird could be a strip mall This is not how ~t was characterized to the public We are adamantly opbosed to this use ofpropemk ~u~ounded by residential homes and f~e] we should have ha~the opportum~y to express our v~ews to the Planning and Zoning Commission belure an~ decisions were made Therefore,,, we request that the Council keep our objections, in ~ind during the December I0 Council Meeting Wewould not object to the use ofthe ~rope~y as ot~ce space with a discreet design 1 thank you tbr your attemion Sincerely, Gall & Jerry Head December 2, 2002 III/~~ Dear Neighbors, As you may ~ow the land across Mac~hur Bou~~ main entr~ce in to Waterford is zoned for ret~l use.On December 10,: ~002 a site pla'e~~ for the development on this tract of land will be brought before ff The plans have all ready been approved be the Planning m notice in the Citizen Advocate and the Agenda Item for th Commission meeting held on 21 November listed this dev building". However, in reviewing the site plan it is evide: an office building. The plans indicate the proposed uses f~ and medical. The plans clearly show this development to having a very retail look with storefront doors and windov is nothing office-like about this structure and no considera surrounding land use and to the mass, density and buildin structures. The building has a linear arrangement with a seam metal roof that is out of character with the area. My interest in this matter is not to stop the develop is to see that the development compliments the residential I have written to the Mayor and Council Members express and Zoning Meeting notices on this development where m building" rather than a mix of retail and office space. I ret item to the Planning and Zoning Commission and require ~ that the concerns of adjacent homeowners can be shared w developer. If you are disturbed about the development of this encourage you to contact the Mayor or City Council memt Since this item is not going before the council as a public a chance for the public to speak at the Council Meeting on contacting Council Members before the meeting may be y~ Please feel free to contact me if you desire addition Steve Wright 663 Glen Lakes Dr 972-745-4684 e City Council for approval. ~d Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning ,qopment as an "office it that the development is not ~r the building as retail, office )e a strip center building 's. From my perspective, there 5on has been given to the style of the surrounding 3' plain fagade and a standing rnent of this land. My interest neighborhoods that surround it. ng my belief that the Planning sleading as they stated "office uested the council return this hat proper notice be given so ith the commission and the ~roperty as a strip center I ers and voice your concerns. earing there will likely not be Dec 10m. Therefore ~ur only chance to be heard. al information. From: To: Date: Subject: Jean Ashenfelter <jean@jadesignsolutions.com> <citycouncil@ci.coppell.tx.us> 12/9/02 9:09AM Retail Development TO: The Honorable Mayor Candy Sheehan And Council Members: Doug Stover Tim Brancheau Jayne Peters Diana Raines Marsha Tunnell Dave Herring Bill York City Manager: Jim Witt City Attorney: Robert Hagar RE: Retail Development of Vista Center located on North MacArthur Boulevard, Coppell, Texas Attention to all listed, I have been a Coppell resident since 1982 and own two properties here--one at 253 Heartz Road and the other at 672 West Peninsula. I writing to you because of a concern I have regarding the development the property mentioned above. This development appears to fall short complementing the character of the surrounding residential properties. One thing I have witnessed over the past 20 years here in Coppell is the consistent and prudent application of strict building codes which has aided in the steady increase of property values and yielded a prime tax rate for our city from those properties. I believe the above mentioned retail development is counter to this progress. The aesthetics of the surrounding areas will be negatively impacted should you allow this to proceed without re-addressing the appearance of this retail strip. I realize the zoning issue is closed, however, the announcement in the local papers was misleading--stating this property would be targeted for office/medical use. This is clearly not the case. Short of re-addressing the use of this property, perhaps we could at least make certain any development does not look as this one currently does. It will cast a negative influence over our neighborhoods, cause the homes to become less desirable, and therefore eventua y result in devalued property and loss of tax revenues. Please reconsider allowing this development to continue in its current state. rtl IVl~rcle Lhamond - ~etall uevelopmen[ Pa~e 2 Your time and attention is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Jean and Don Ashenfelter 672 West Peninsula 972-462-1735 2oo - z~ to, wate~ora m ~ Ior ~1 u~. On D~b~ ~ ne pans nave an r~y o~ app~v~ be ~e ~ng Co~iaMon me~ h~d on 21 Novemb~ li~ ~s d ml~m~t ~ ~ "o~ b~ldi~'. ~wev~, in ~i~i~ ~e Mte plan it i$ ~i~ ~t ~ ~ ~elopm~ is not ~ o~ ~ildi~. ~e pl~s ind~te ~e p~ u$~ br the buil~ ~ ~t~i, o~ ~:~i~ T~~w ~s de~lopm~t is ~~like about,t~s ~ ~ co~sid~  d ~ ~ ~nsRy ~ ~ ~of~e ~o~ mldmg h~ a l~ ~dnt ~ a ~m m~l rooft~t is out ofc~ ~he~. :_. ~Y - . In. mm maR~ ~ot to ~p the d~lo~mmt of t~nd. ~y za to see ~t ~ O~opm~t ~mphments the ~id~tial ]noighbor~d$ ~t sumund it I ~ve ~ m the Mayor ~d Co~cil Memb~ ~ing m~ belief~at ~e PL~ng ~d Zoffing Meefi~ notices on ~s d~elopm~t wh~e m[sl~ ~ ~y 8tat~ o~ i~~' ~er ~ a ~x o~ fetal ~d office spac~ I r~ue~ __ ~o me rmm~ ~d Zomng Cmmission ~d requi~ l~t pmp~ ~t the con~s of adjacent hom~m~ can be sh~ M~ the com~aMon ~d t~ develops. H'you are disturbed about the development of this l~roperty as a strip c~ntex I ~inCOceU~.ge.?u .to COnta? the Mayor or City Council me~mb~rs and voice your concerns u-us ~tem Is not going before the council as a public h~ng ~ere will likely not be a chance for the public to speak at the Council Meeting on Dec I0 . Therefore contacting Council lV~emb~ before the meeting may bc Yqur only chance to be heard. Please feel fi'ee to eomact me if you desire additional information.