City of Richardson City Plan Commission Agenda Packet May 1, 2012

Transcription

City of Richardson
City Plan Commission
Agenda Packet
May 1, 2012
To advance to the background material for each
item in the agenda, click on the item title in the
agenda or click on Bookmarks in the tool bar on
the left side of your screen.
AGENDA
CITY OF RICHARDSON - CITY PLAN COMMISSION
MAY 1, 2012
7:00 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
411 W. ARAPAHO ROAD
BRIEFING SESSION: 6:00 P.M. Prior to the regular business meeting, the City Plan Commission will
meet with staff in the East Conference Room, located on the first floor, to receive a briefing on:
A. Discussion of Regular Agenda items
B. Staff Report on pending development, zoning permits, and planning matters
MINUTES
1. Approval of minutes of the regular business meeting of April 17, 2012.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Zoning File 11-24 Bowser Self-Service Warehouse: Consider and take necessary action on a
request by Kenneth R. Smith, representing Heath Asset Management, LP, for approval of a Special
Permit for a self-service warehouse with modified development standards. The 1.6 acre site is
currently zoned I-FP(2) Industrial and is located at the southeast corner of Bowser Road and Alpha
Drive. Applicant: Kenneth R. Smith. Staff: Sam Chavez.
3. Zoning File 12-05: Consider and take necessary action on a request by Darryl M. Burman,
representing Group 1 Realty, Inc., for a Special Permit with special conditions for a motor vehicle
repair shop – major to be located at 1700 Gateway Boulevard, which is to be used in conjunction with
the existing Courtesy Nissan dealership located at 1777 N Central Expressway. The property is
currently zoned C-M Commercial. Staff: Chris Shacklett.
4. Zoning File 12-06: Consider and take necessary action on a request by Tyler Isbell, representing
Hartman Richardson Heights Properties, LLC, for a change in zoning from C-M Commercial with
special conditions to PD Planned Development to accommodate the construction of a movie theater
on property located at 100 S. Central Expressway. The property is currently zoned C-M Commercial.
Applicant: Tyler Isbell. Staff: Chris Shacklett.
ADJOURN
The City Hall/Civic Center is wheelchair accessible. Any requests for sign interpretive services must be made 48
hours ahead of the meeting. To make arrangements, call (972) 744-4000, or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989.
I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall on or before 5:30p.m., Friday,
April 27, 2012.
__________________________________
Kathy Welp, Executive Secretary
Richardson City Plan Commission Agenda
ds/endeavor/cpc/2012/CPC 2012-05-1 Agenda.doc
Page 1 of 1
Development
Status Report
Development Status Report
City of Richardson, Texas ٠ Development Services Department
Updated: April 26, 2012
#
Name/Location
Project Information
Status
Consider and take necessary action on a request
by Bo Chapman, representing Lake Park
Townhomes LTD, for amendments to the existing
PD Planned Development special conditions on an
8.76-acre site to reduce the minimum lot size for
lots along the northern property line, increase the
number of units allowed in a townhome building,
and for approval of building elevations for a
proposed townhome development located on the
north side of Lake Park Way, east of Coit.
Applicant: Bo Chapman. Staff: Chris Shacklett.
April 3, 2012
A request for a Special Permit for a self-service
warehouse with modified development standards
at 906 N. Bowser Road. The property is currently
zoned I-FP(2) Industrial. Applicant: Kenneth R.
Smith, representing Heath Asset Management, LP.
May 1, 2012
A request by Darryl M. Burman, representing
Group 1 Realty, Inc. and Commodore Partners
LTD, for a Special Permit for a motor vehicle
repair shop—major to be located at 1700 Gateway
Boulevard which is to be used in conjunction with
the existing Courtesy Nissan dealership located at
1777 N Central Expressway. The properties are
currently zoned C-M Commercial. Staff: Chris
May 1, 2012
A request by Tyler Isbell, representing Hartman
Richardson Heights Properties, LLC, for a change
in zoning from C-M Commercial with special
conditions to PD Planned Development to
accommodate the construction of a movie theater
on a property located at 100 S. Central
Expressway. The property is currently zoned C-M
Commercial. Staff: Chris Shacklett
May 1, 2012
ZONING/SPECIAL PERMITS
1
2
ZF 12-04
Lake Park Townhomes
Phase 2
NE of Lake Park Way &
Coit Rd.
ZF 11-24
Self-Storage
Warehouse
906 N. Bowser Rd.
Staff: Chris Shacklett.
3
ZF 12-05
Courtesy Nissan Motor
Vehicle Repair Shop
1700 Gateway Blvd.
Recommended Approval
City Council
April 23, 2012
Approved
Continued from the
March 20, 2012
CPC Meeting
Shacklett.
4
ZF 12-06
Movie Theater
100 S. Central Expy.
VARIANCES
No Variance requests at this time.
X:\Publications and Forms\Development Status Report & Map\COR Development Status Report.docx
Page 1 of 3
#
Name/Location
Project Information
Status
PLAT/CONCEPT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVALS
5
Brick Row Apartment
Development
151 & 165 Brick Row
Dr.
Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Building
Elevations for Brick Row Multi-family
Buildings D and E: A request for approval of a
site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations
for development of two (2) buildings with a total
of 77 multi-family units. The 2.52-acre site is
located at 151 Brick Row. Applicant: Chris Ray,
representing Ranger Dynamics. Staff: Israel
Roberts.
City Plan commission
April 3, 2012
Approved
(Plans and Replat)
City Council
April 23, 2012
Approved
(Elevations)
Replat Lot 1C, Block O and Lot 1C, Block P
of the McKamy Park Addition: Consider and
take necessary action for a request for approval of
a replat of Lot 1B, Block O and Lot 1B, Block P of
the McKamy Park Addition and a 1.87-acre tract
of unplatted property for the development of Brick
Row multi-family Buildings D and E. The 3.65-acre
site is located at 151 and 165 Brick Row.
Applicant: Chris Ray, representing Ranger
Dynamics. Staff: Israel Roberts.
6
7-Eleven
4180 E. Renner Rd.
Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Building
Elevations, and Lighting Plans for 7-Eleven:
A request for approval of a site plan, landscape
plan, building elevations, and lighting plan for
development of a 3,178 square foot convenience
store with gasoline sales. The 1.58-acre site is
located at 4180 E. Renner Road at the southwest
corner of Renner Road and North Star Road and is
zoned PD Planned Development for the LR-M(2)
Local Retail District with a Special Permit for a
convenience store with gasoline sales. Applicant:
Brian Nebel. Staff: Israel Roberts.
April 17, 2012
Approved
Replat Lots 3B and 5, Block A of the
Breckinridge Commons Addition, being a
replat of Lot 3A, Block A of the Breckinridge
Commons Addition: Consider and take
necessary action on a request for approval of a
replat of Lot 3A, Block A of the Breckinridge
Commons Addition to subdivide the subject lot
into two (2) lots for the purpose of developing a
convenience store with gasoline sales on
proposed Lot 5. The 3.56-acre site is located at
the southwest corner of Renner Road and North
Star Road (4148 and 4180 E. Renner Road).
Applicant: Brian Nebel. Staff: Israel Roberts.
Page 2 of 3
#
Name/Location
Project Information
Status
Seafood Restaurant –
Eastside
1811 N. Greenville Ave.
Revised the site plan to reflect the installation of a
covered patio (7’-10”×16’-10”) on the north side
of building P-2.
Staff
April 12, 2012
One Telecom Center
2600 N. Central Expy.
Revised the site plan to reflect the construction of
an additional parking level atop the existing 4level parking structure serving the adjacent 9story office building. The additional level will add
160 parking spaces to the parking structure. 772
parking spaces are required for the office
building; 1,009 spaces will be provided with this
addition.
Staff
April 18, 2012
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS
7
8
Approved
Approved
Page 3 of 3
nia
Murphy
Hartford
Brand
North Star
d
or
Greenfield
Jupiter
Spring-Valley
Buckingham
l
1
0.5
0
1
Miles
µ
Updated: April 26, 2012
City of Richardson, Texas
Audelia
Richland Park
ten
College Park
Whitehall
Ce
n
8. One Telecom Center, 2600 N. Central Expy.
Development Status Map
Yale
Plano
Grove
e
n vi l l
Gr ee
ms
Abr
a
Telecom
Ho
lf
GARLAND
Glenville
Bowser
Dorothy
n
ba
rur
Int
e
ay
Sh
DALLAS
Plat/Concept/Development Plan
7. Seafood Restaurant –Eastside, 1811 N. Greenville Ave., Suite #400
Belt Line
Frances
Spring Valley
Buckingham
No Variance requests at this time.
Administrative Approval
w
an
e rm
5
Variance
6. 7-Eleven, 4180 E. Renner Rd.
Apollo
Apollo
Polk
4. Movie Theater, 100 S. Central Expy. (ZF 12-06)
5. Brick Row Apartment Development, 151 & 165 Brick Row Rd.
ss
re
en
tra
lE
/C
5
US
7
2
Main
xp
We
at h
ere
Floyd
d
4
TI
Dublin
Waterfall
Shiloh
e ns
Ow
Owens
Alma
Woodall
Lindale
ry
Waterview
r
be
Cottonwood
North Spring
Jupiter
reek
Ro u
th C
id
e
3. Motor Vehicle Repair Shop, 1700 Gateway Blvd. (ZF 12-05)
Arapaho
ew
N
Coit
2. Self-Storage Warehouse, 906 N. Bowser Rd. (ZF 11-24)
3
Richardson
Custer
West Shore
Mimosa
DALLAS
1. Lake Park Townhomes Phase 2, NE of Lake Park Way & Coit Rd. (ZF 12-04)
7
Northlake
Spring Valley
Zoning/Special Permit
Collins
Belt Line
Coventry
GARLAND
La
ke
s
al
ip
Melrose
Dumont
Wyndham
Alma
Collins
Cree
k
Prair
ie
University
Galatyn
Campbell
ic
un
M
Lookout
ton
Jonsson
Research
ld
k
1 Park
Lake
reek
rings
ee
Fall
C
Lookout
Breckinridge
rf i e
Cr
Dallas County
r Sp
n
Collin County
de
k
me
yo
Lookout
sa
Be
c
Renner
Sharp
Clea
n
Ca
li
Pa
8
ek
re
C
s
6
ring
Renner
Point North
Synergy Park
Infocom
C ar
Frankford
e
Sum
ew
rvi
e
t
Wa
nsid
Moroney
Gr e e
MURPHY
PLANO
President George Bush Turnpike
Agenda
Item 1
CITY OF RICHARDSON
CITY PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES – APRIL 17, 2012
The Richardson City Plan Commission met April 17, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall in the
Council Chambers, 411 W. Arapaho Road, Richardson, Texas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
David Gantt, Chairman
Bill Hammond, Vice Chair
Gerald Bright, Commissioner
Janet DePuy, Commissioner
Marilyn Frederick, Commissioner
Barry Hand, Commissioner
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Thomas Maxwell, Commissioner
Don Bouvier, Alternate
Eron Linn, Alternate
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Susan Smith, Asst. Director of Dev. Svcs – Dev. & Eng.
Israel Roberts, Development Review Manager
Kathy Welp, Executive Secretary
BRIEFING SESSION
Prior to the regular business meeting, the City Plan Commission met with staff to receive a
briefing on agenda items and staff reports. No action was taken.
MINUTES
1. Approval of the minutes of the regular business meeting of April 3, 2012.
Motion:
Commissioner DePuy made a motion to approve the minutes as presented; second
by Commissioner Frederick. Motion passed 6-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Plan Commission
and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless desired, in which case any item(s) may be removed from the Consent Agenda for
separate consideration.
2. Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations, and Lighting Plans for 7-Eleven
(companion to Item 3): A request for approval of a site plan, landscape plan, building
elevations, and lighting plan for development of a 3,178 square foot convenience store with
gasoline sales. The 1.58-acresite is located at 4180 E. Renner Road at the southwest corner
of North Star Road and is zoned PD Planned Development for the LR-M(2) Local Retail
District with a Special Permit for a convenience store with gasoline sales.
Motion:
Vice Chair Hammond made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented; second by Commissioner Bright. Motion passed 6-0.
Richardson City Plan Commission Minutes
April 17, 2012
PUBLIC HEARING
3. Replat Lots 3B and 5, Block A of the Breckinridge Commons Addition, being a replat
of Lot 3A, Block A of the Breckinridge Commons Addition (companion to Item 2):
Consider and take necessary action on a request for approval of a replat of Lot 3A, Block A
of the Breckinridge Commons Addition to subdivide the subject lot into two (2) lots for the
purpose of developing a convenience store with gasoline sales on proposed Lot 5. The 3.56acre site is located at the southwest corner of Renner Road and North Star Road (4148 and
4180 E. Renner Road).
Mr. Roberts advised that the requested replat would divide Lot 3A, Block A into two lots,
Lots 3B and 5, for the development of the previously approve 7-Eleven on Lot 5. He added
that the replat dedicated easements for the operation of the convenience store and gasoline
sales, and met all City Subdivision guidelines.
No questions were asked of staff and Chairman Gantt opened the public hearing.
No comments were made in favor or opposition and Chairman Gantt closed the public
hearing.
Motion:
Commissioner Bright made a motion to approve Item 3 as presented; second by
Commissioner DePuy. Motion passed 6-0.
ADJOURN
With no further business before the Commission, Chairman Gantt adjourned the regular business
meeting at 7:03 p.m.
_________________________________
David Gantt, Chairman
ds:CPC/2012/ 2012-04-17 Minutes.doc
2
Agenda
Item 2
ZONING FILE 11-24
Attachments:
1. Excerpts 12-20-11 and 03-20-12 CPC Minutes
2. Staff Report
3. Zoning Map
4. Aerial Map
5. Oblique Aerial Looking South
6. Site Exhibit – Dec. 20, 2011 CPC Meeting (Exhibit B)
7. Staff’s Original Concept Plan (Exhibit C)
8. Site Exhibit – March 20, 2012 CPC Meeting (Exhibit D)
9. Proposed Zoning Site Plan (Exhibit E)
10. Site Photos (Exhibits F-1 through F-3)
11. Applicant’s Statement
12. Notice of Public Hearing
13. Notification List
X:\Zoning\Zoning Cases\2011\ZF 11-24 Climate Control Self Storage - 906 N Bowser\2012-05-01 CPC Packet Info\ZF 1124
Attachment List.docxe
EXCERPT
CITY PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - December 20, 2011
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Zoning File 11-24:
A request by Kenneth R. Smith, representing Heath Asset
Management, LP, for approval of a Special Permit for a self-service warehouse with
modified development standards. The 1.6-acre site is currently zoned I-FP(2) Industrial
and is located at the southeast corner of Bowser Road and Alpha Drive.
Mr. Shacklett reported the applicant was requesting a Special Permit for a self-service
warehouse with modified development standards that included maintaining the site “as
is” in its legal nonconforming status. He added that the project would be broken into two
phases: 1) converting the vacant western half of the building into mini storage units; and,
2) converting the eastern half of the building into mini storage units once the current
occupant, Verizon, vacates the building. The total number of units requested would be
up to 300 once the building was fully converted.
Mr. Shacklett noted that the proposed site plan indicated minor site modification
including removal of stripped parking areas in the right-of-way, adding five box planters,
and modifying the parking spaces along Industrial Boulevard to bring them back within
the property lines.
Mr. Shacklett presented the four changes recommended by staff that dealt with
nonconforming issues and those included:
•
Site Access and Circulation – currently there are three driveways along Alpha that
are nonconforming. Staff is recommending that the center and easternmost
driveways be removed, and that the westernmost driveway east along Alpha Drive
be relocated to comply with design standards for a driveway from Bowser Road.
These changes would require the removal of the dock areas on the property and
the applicant has stated they do not want to remove the docks because it would
remove the option for the property if it was to revert back to a traditional
warehouse.
•
Revised Parking Layout – staff suggested that the parking along the north side of
the building be reconfigured to provide angle parking, which would require
creating a one-way driveway. The proposed design eliminates the need for
parking screening along Industrial Drive and incorporates landscape islands at
either end of the proposed parking areas adjacent to the building. The applicant
has chosen not to reconfigure the parking due to the loss of parking spaces that
could hamper future occupation of the building by uses other than self-service
warehouse.
•
Revised Landscaping Design – because the site currently contains no landscaped
areas, and the five planter boxes proposed by the applicant will not count towards
meeting the City’s minimum 7% landscaping requirement, the staff proposed an
on-site landscape buffer combined with landscaping in the right-of-way to provide
10 feet of landscaping along the street frontages. Staff also suggested removing
1
the dock and trash enclosures located on the west side of the building and adding
landscaping to that area. The applicant chose not to make these changes due to
the removal of parking and changes to access on the site.
•
Revised Dumpster and Enclosure Location/Design – based on the City’s Solid
Waste Department’s recommendation, staff suggested that a double enclosure be
constructed at the southwest corner of the property due to the high volume of
trash that is generated at similar type facilities. The City’s Solid Waste
Department services the dumpster at its current location; however, the location is
not ideal and could become an issue in the future.
Mr. Shacklett concluded his presentation noting the applicant had been informed the site
could maintain its nonconforming status for uses allowed by right in I-FP(2) zoning
district without any site modifications; however, the applicant was requesting a Special
Permit for a use that is not allowed by right in that district. In addition, the applicant was
advised that site modifications should be made to mitigate nonconforming elements to
enable the site to function conducive to the proposed use, and without these
modifications, the functionality of the site appeared to be inappropriate for the proposed
use.
Commissioner DePuy asked how long the western portion of the building had been
vacant.
Mr. Shacklett said he was not sure how long it had been vacant and suggested the
applicant might be better able to respond.
Commissioner Linn asked if staff knew why the applicant was not willing to make the
suggested changes.
Mr. Shacklett replied the two main reasons for not making the changes were the
associated costs of making the changes, and by removing the docks and reducing the
amount of parking it would hamper any future use of the property.
Commissioner Bouvier asked if the suggested changes were made and sometime in the
future the applicant wanted to revert back to the current entitlements regarding setbacks
and parking, would that be allowed or would that option be lost.
Mr. Shacklett replied that if the suggested changes were made to the site plan, and in the
future they wanted to revert back to the original warehouse use, the applicant would have
to redesign the parking to meet the proposed use requirements, or obtain variances for
reduced parking and landscaping.
Commissioner Maxwell asked if the applicant had the right to go back and use the
building “as is” without making any modifications regardless of how long the space had
been vacant, or would be vacant. He also wanted to know how many parking spaces
would be required for the current tenant and the proposed self-storage business if it was
approved.
Mr. Shacklett replied that as long the use was allowed by right and they did not make any
changes to the site there would be no problems.
2
Regarding the parking spaces, Mr. Shacklett stated that 41 spaces would be required for
both Verizon and the self-storage warehouse.
Chairman Gantt asked if based on recommended changes to the site, how many spaces
would be left, and would that leave enough parking spaces
Mr. Shacklett replied there would be 20 spaces left, and some of the spaces could be
reconfigured, but this is an example of the difficulty of an applicant requesting something
that is not allowed by right and trying to keep the existing tenant; the applicant would not
be able to make the staff’s recommended changes and keep Verizon as a tenant.
Chairman Gantt asked what would be the percentage of landscaping based on staff’s
recommended changes. He also wanted to know if there was a sidewalk on the east side
of the property along Industrial Boulevard.
Mr. Shacklett replied that the areas along Bowser, Industrial and Alpha would provide
approximately 7% landscaping, albeit the majority would be located along Bowser.
Regarding the sidewalk, Mr. Shacklett said there was a small parkway south of the
building with a sidewalk on eastern edge, but the sidewalk stops at the ramp to the
building, and between the ramp and Alpha Drive there are only parking spaces.
Commissioner Frederick asked if a landscape buffer could be required along Alpha
Drive, keeping the parking at “straight in,” and leave the ramp in the middle of the
property. She also wanted to know if the staff’s proposed landscape would take the place
of the parallel parking spaces along Alpha Drive.
Mr. Shacklett replied that the suggestion would have to be looked at, but it could create a
dead-end parking area so another curb cut would have to be added. He added that the
landscaping proposed by the staff would take the place of the parallel parking spaces, but
would still allow a drive wide enough for a one-way driving aisle.
With no further questions, Chairman Gantt opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ken Smith, 4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 915, Dallas, Texas, stated he has owned
the property at 906 N. Bowser for the last 15 years and was submitting the request for a
secondary use because of the downturn in the market for industrial properties. He added
that the downturn was evidenced by the 355,000 square feet of vacant industrial space in
the City that competes directly with his property.
Mr. Smith said he would prefer to have a single tenant as opposed to the multiple tenants
that would be in a self-storage warehouse; however, there have been no prospects in the
last two years. He added that the terms of the lease with the existing tenant in the eastern
portion of the building prevented him from making some of the changes recommended
by the staff, and even with those changes the site would not be in compliance.
Mr. Smith noted that the building was built prior to the current City regulations and as
such is considered legally nonconforming. He stated that there has never been any type
of complaint or violations associated with his building including any problems with
3
vehicles pulling into the loading docks causing a traffic problem on the surrounding
streets.
Mr. Smith concluded his presentation asking the Commission to approve his request.
Commissioner DePuy asked why the applicant thought the current tenant, Verizon, would
be moving out and when would that occur. She also noted wanted to know if Verizon
left, who would be the ideal tenant for the building.
Mr. Smith replied that Verizon renewed their lease in September of 2010 for the entire
building, but as of a year ago they determined they no longer needed all of the space and
moved their operations into the eastern portion of the building. Since that time they have
been trying to find someone to sublease the other section of the building. He added that
the current Verizon lease is for three years with a three year option to renew, but he felt
they would be slowly migrating out of the building into other buildings in the area.
Regarding the ideal tenant for the building, Smith said someone similar to Verizon would
be ideal, but he felt the secondary use as self-storage would be compatible with the
building and the area. In addition, he noted that the self-storage company directly behind
his building did not have climate control units and he had spoken with the owners of that
business about combining the management of the two facilities.
Commissioner Maxwell asked if the center loading dock was being used, and could they
use the loading dock on the east side. He also wanted to know if a dumpster would be
required for a self-storage warehouse.
Mr. Smith replied that Verizon takes their deliveries through the middle loading dock,
and the dock on the east side does not provide service to the whole building.
Mr. Shacklett replied that the City requires most businesses to have a dumpster, or to
have a site where a dumpster could be placed if needed.
Commissioner Frederick asked what the function was of the loading dock located next to
the dumpster on the west side of the building. She also wanted to know if it would be
possible to remove that dock, move the dumpster to the rear of the building and making
the loading area a green space.
Mr. Smith replied that side of the building was empty so the loading dock is not currently
being used, but thought it would be useful for anyone wanting to bring items in to selfstorage units. He added that he was not opposed to moving the dumpster to the rear of
the building.
Ms. Smith noted that if the loading dock was left in place and green space was added
where the dumpster is currently located, it would cause problems with maneuverability.
Commissioner Linn asked if Verizon decided to stay and asked for use of the whole
building, would the applicant change the building back to its original state. He also
wanted to know if the applicant had taken the suggestions from the City staff to a
contactor to find out the cost for implementation.
4
Mr. Smith replied that he would bend over backwards to keep Verizon as a tenant and
would be hard pressed to turn them down. However, he reminded the Commission that
he currently has a building with half the space that is vacant. Also, he had not priced out
the cost of making the changes recommended by the staff, but estimated it could cost
approximately $250,000.
Commissioner DePuy asked if the proposed self-storage business would have an on-site
manager.
Mr. Smith replied that he has contacted the management of the storage facility to the
south to manage both properties; however, if the management from the other facility does
not want to handle both properties, he said he would get an on-site manager.
Commissioner DePuy pointed out that the property was located in a
redevelopment/reinvestment area, and understood the need for the owner to make the
business viable, but felt there was a need to landscape the property to draw business to
the area and to make it compatible with some of the surrounding industrial properties.
No further comments were made in favor or opposed and Chairman Gantt closed the
public hearing.
Chairman Gantt stated he would love to see the building occupied, but he understood the
difficulties associated with the building (i.e., age, current state of the economy, etc.), and
either making the changes or finding a tenant would be challenging.
Commissioner DePuy noted that other self-storage uses have been allowed as secondary
uses, but wanted to know if any had been approved in an industrial district. She pointed
out that if the self-storage business was allowed, there would be an increase in traffic in
an already tight area and how would that be handled.
Mr. Shacklett replied that the last self-storage case to come before the Commission was a
request to change the zoning on a property to Industrial and build self-storage units inside
an existing building, but the Council denied the request.
Chairman Gantt noted that loading docks were an asset in a warehouse or Industrial
District, but the way they are configured in the current building could cause problems.
Commissioner DePuy asked if the parallel parking spaces along Alpha Drive were
replaced with landscaping, and a curb cut was added, would that leave enough room to
maneuver.
Mr. Shacklett replied that the applicant would have to meet spacing requirements and
where the new curb cuts would be placed, the parking spaces against the building would
have to be eliminated, which in turn narrows the driving aisle.
Chairman Gantt asked if the western portion of the building was converted to climate
controlled self-storage units, could the entrance be through the existing self-storage
business south of the building.
5
Mr. Shacklett replied the building sits on the property line adjacent to the other property’s
driveway and you can not have an entrance at that location. Also, the other business
would have to be included in the rezoning application.
Commissioner Linn said he felt the property was a perfect candidate for redevelopment,
but felt the applicant lacked commitment to the change based on his statement that if the
current tenant wanted to take over the whole property he would drop his plans for the
improvements and the self-storage business.
Commissioner Maxwell stated he was not comfortable granting a Special Permit without
implementing the staff’s recommendations for improvements and changes, even though
he did not have a problem with a self-storage business in the building. He asked if the
existing curb cut on Alpha Drive could be widened to the west to allow an exit from that
side of the property.
Mr. Chavez replied that any changes made to the site would most likely require some
type of variance, but the changes could be accomplished. However, the issues the staff
ran into was that the applicant wanted to validate the site “as is” without making any
modifications or improvements. He added that the Commission could recommend
continuing the item and have staff work with the applicant, but from discussions with the
applicant it is apparent he wants to leave the site in its current form to leave his options
open.
Commissioner Maxwell commented that he understood the need for the middle ramp off
Alpha Drive, but if the current tenant moves out and the whole building converts to selfstorage, the ramp will ultimately have to be removed. He asked if a curb cut could be
added to the west side in addition to a dumpster enclosure.
Mr. Shacklett replied that sanitation trucks require a minimum of 42 feet of back up space
and to get a location that would allow enough pull in and back up space without backing
onto Bowser Road would not be feasible and could pose a liability.
Commissioner Maxwell suggested that the dumpster could take the place of the trash
compactor that was being removed because it would prevent the trucks from backing
onto Bowser Road.
Mr. Shacklett replied staff had not looked at this as an option and pointed out that the
dumpster would have to be at a 30 degree angle to any entrance, which would have the
truck backing towards the loading dock. He said staff would take a look at this option.
Commissioner Bouvier said he liked the idea, and the concept was compatible with the
business to the south, but felt the presentation was lacking in details and wondered if the
building was safe for the public if it was converted to self-storage units. He suggested
that a hybrid plan might be possible; however, the current plan was not appropriate.
Commissioner Frederick concurred with Mr. Bouvier and thanked the applicant for his
efforts, but felt the applicant should go back and work with staff to resolve some of the
issues brought forth by the Commission.
6
Commissioner DePuy said she felt landscaping could be added along Alpha Road and the
dumpster on Bowser Road would be unsightly, but felt the addition of landscaping and
proper placement of the dumpster along Bowser Road would only benefit the property.
She suggested the applicant work with staff and listen to their recommendations.
Chairman Gantt stated that he would vote against recommending a Special Permit for the
property under the current proposal, and questioned the commitment of the applicant
given his request to keep the loading docks and everything “as is.” He added that asking
the applicant to conform to staff’s plan might be an undo burden, but felt some of the
aspects regarding landscaping would help the marketability of the property.
Motion: Commissioner Linn made a motion to recommend denial Item 6 without
prejudice; second by Commissioner Bouvier.
Commissioner Maxwell said he could not vote in favor of the motion as
presented, but felt the applicant should be given another chance to work with staff
then reapply.
Commissioner Bouvier asked if the motion for denial was passed, would the
applicant be allowed to return at a later time with a different presentation.
Mr. Shacklett replied that if the motion to deny was passed, the applicant has to
option to appeal to the City Council within 10 days; however, if they do not
appeal within the 10 days the item dies, but they would be able to reapply.
However, a motion to continue would allow the applicant to go back and work on
the proposal and come back before the Commission whenever they are ready.
Motion failed 1-5 with Chairman Gantt and Commissioners Bouvier, DePuy,
Frederick and Maxwell opposed.
Commissioner Maxwell made a motion to continue Item 6 indefinitely; second by
Commissioner Bouvier. Motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner Linn opposed.
7
EXCERPT
CITY PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES – MARCH 20, 2012
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Zoning File 11-24 Bowser Self Service Warehouse: Consider and take necessary
action on a request by Kenneth R. Smith, representing Heath Asset Management, LP, for
approval of a Special Permit for a self-service warehouse with modified development
standards. The 1.6 acre site is currently zoned I-FP(2) Industrial and is located at the
southeast corner of Bowser Road and Alpha Drive
Mr. Chavez reported that the request was for a Special Permit for a self-service
warehouse located the southeast corner of Bowser Road and Alpha Drive and that the
request was previously considered by the Commission in December of 2011, but had
been continued indefinitely to allow staff and the applicant to revise the site plan to try
and bring it closer into compliance. He added that there is currently a 40,000 square foot,
nonconforming structure on the site, and that the nonconforming issues related to the
landscaping, driveway locations, and driveway widths.
Mr. Chavez noted that the site would be developed in two phases: Phase 1 involved the
western half of the building with the construction of 150 self-storage units, landscaping
along Bowser Road and Alpha Road, a 2,000 square foot office store front, filling in the
existing loading ramp located on the west side of the building, and adding a double wide
dumpster screen at the southwest corner of the building.
Regarding Phase 2, Mr. Chavez stated that the development of this phase would depend
on tenant in the eastern portion of the building vacating the premises. The improvements
for this phase would include cutting asphalt along Alpha Road and Industrial Drive to
provide landscaping, and modifying the existing driveway widths to bring them into
conformance with City requirements. In addition, once the eastern portion of the
building was converted into a self-service warehouse, there will be a total of 300 storage
units, 1.9 percent on-site landscaping, and 43 parking spaces.
Mr. Chavez closed his presentation by presenting the elevations for the office, site photos
including one showing a moving truck and the limited space available, and noting that
staff was recommending two possible motions for the Commission to consider:
•
•
First, if the application was approved as presented, the Concept Site Plan
which allows the applicant to utilize the site for the proposed use with a few
minor modifications would be submitted to the City Council for consideration,
but the site would still remain nonconforming.
Second, if the Commission considered recommending approval of the
applicant’s request with additional modifications, a motion for a continuance
should be made to allow staff and the applicant to further refine any
conditions related to any of the proposed site improvements.
Commissioner Bright read from a paragraph in the staff report stating “…without any
modifications to address the nonconforming elements of the site, the functionality of the
site is not appropriate for the intended use” and asked if the functionality of the site
1
would be appropriate for the intended use if only the driveway modifications were
completed.
Mr. Chavez replied that the issue that hampers how the property is used is the
maneuverability of vehicles, especially novice drivers with larger vehicles. He added that
as far as completing the driveway modifications, those would improve the safety aspect
of the location of the driveways, but there would still be problems with maneuvering
deficiencies on the site because of the lack of depth in the parking/driving area.
Commissioner Linn asked if the angled parking spaces recommended in Exhibit D would
address the specific concern regarding the parking area.
Mr. Chavez replied yes.
Commissioner Maxwell asked staff to review the three staff proposed driveway
modifications with the Commission.
Mr. Chavez replied that the driveway at Bowser and Alpha Roads was located 26 feet
from the intersection, which is less than the City’s driveway standard requirement of 50
feet so the applicant would need to relocate the driveway. The second modification
pertained to the width of the center drive along Alpha Road that is used for the loading
dock. Staff recommendation would keep that driveway for the sole use of the loading
dock, but would create driveways on each side of the loading dock driveway to allow for
ease of access. Lastly, the staff was recommending that the driveway on Industrial Drive
be widened to 24 feet.
Mr. Chavez added that even with the three modifications, the driveways would still be
nonconforming because the driveway throat (measured from the face of the curb to the
first turning movement) measurement is 12 to 14 feet when the City requirement is 28
feet, which highlights how much the site is hampered by lack of lot depth from Alpha
Road.
Commissioner Maxwell asked if there was a minimum distance requirement between
driveways, and wanted to know if a driveway could be added along Bowser Road to line
up with the existing overhead door.
Mr. Chavez replied that the distance requirement was 80 feet, but that the applicant
would have to seek relief or a variance for the distance between the drives on each side of
the loading dock driveway on Alpha Road.
Regarding adding a driveway along Bowser Road, Mr. Chavez replied there was a grade
change from Bowser Road to the building that would make it very difficult to overcome.
Chairman Gantt asked if the earlier statement about filling in the ramp on the west end of
the property meant the applicant would trim the borders of the ramp and then pave over
the area.
Mr. Chavez replied that the applicant would fill it in to the existing grade.
Commissioner Hand asked what the requirements were to revoke a Special Permit.
2
Mr. Laughlin, City Attorney, replied that when a Special Permit was granted it becomes a
zoning change so it can not be revoked because, as a general premise, if it was revoked a
nonconforming use would be created.
With no further questions for staff, Chairman Gantt opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ken Smith, 4925 Greenville Avenue, Dallas, Texas, stated that after his request for a
Special Permit was tabled in December 2011, he met with staff regarding concerns over
the landscaping, traffic flow, and location of trash receptacles. He said that he felt they
had addressed all of the issues by adding a landscape buffer around the property,
provided a different location for the dumpster on the west side of the property, added a
customer friendly store front, and added bollards and guardrails in the area of the grade
change and along the loading dock ramp.
Mr. Smith pointed out that the loading dock ramp on Alpha Road would be a common
area ramp and one of two major points of access to the facility for the customers. In
addition, if anyone brought a moving truck to move goods into the facility they would use
the driveway and ramp, and the picture presented by staff was not a fair representation of
the parking area because that vehicle would have had to jump the curb to be parked there.
Commissioner DePuy complimented the applicant on the proposed design for the store
front, but asked why the landscaping was going to be installed in two phases. She also
wanted to know if Verizon was going to vacate the east side of the building.
Mr. Smith replied that he would have no problem with combing the landscaping into one
phase, but he did not know if Verizon was planning on leaving in three years at the end of
their lease.
Commissioner DePuy stated that the non-existent landscaping was one of her concerns
and the little that was proposed should be completed in one phase unless there were
extenuating circumstances.
Commissioner Maxwell asked why the applicant had chosen not to implement the three
driveway and the dumpster recommendations suggested by staff.
Mr. Smith replied that the proposed landscape buffer was substantially more than what is
currently on site and he was not sure if it would constrict the traffic flow, which was a
factor in addition to the cost of adding the driveways. He added that he felt there were
adequate driveways for the facility and pointed out that after Phase 1 traffic would not be
able to flow from one side of the property to the other.
Regarding the dumpster location, Mr. Smith replied that by putting the dumpster on the
east side it would cut off access to the loading dock used by Verizon so he suggested
leaving it on the west side. He added that there were not a lot of other changes that could
be made to site because it was originally developed before many of the City’s ordinances
and codes were initiated and the property did not have the depth to make the changes.
Chairman Gantt asked if the over-head door located next to the proposed store front
would be opened by an employee or would it be an automatic door.
3
Mr. Smith replied that the door will go up at 7:00 a.m. and down at 7:00 p.m. every day
and behind the door there would be glass doors that would allow entry via an access code
whether or not an employee was present.
Chairman Gantt expressed concern that if the automatic over-head door came down
without an employee in attendance it could possibly trap someone inside the building.
He also wanted to know about the ramp on the west side of the building that was going to
be filled in and if a vehicle would be able to drive over that space to get to the dumpsters.
Mr. Smith replied that he would have to look into the concern about locking someone in
the building, and stated that he was planning on filling in the ramp, paving over it and
putting guardrails and bollards where the grade change is located to prevent anyone from
driving over the grade change.
Commissioner Maxwell asked if the overhead door on the west side of building would
remain after the modifications.
Mr. Smith replied that it would stay and be another access point to the facility.
Commissioner Linn asked if the previous tenant for the western portion of the building
was Verizon and if they approached the applicant to re-lease that area would he lease it to
them again.
Mr. Smith replied that the previous tenant had been Verizon, but re-leasing it to them
would depend on if that portion of the facility had been converted to a self-storage
warehouse.
Mr. Laughlin stated that he wanted to expand on his previous comments regarding the
revocation of a Special Permit and noted that there was a provision in the City’s
ordinances that allows the Commission, at the direction of the City Council, to initiate
proceedings to reconsider an existing Special Permit provided the conditions or
circumstances surrounding the Special Permit call into question issues of public health,
safety, morals, general welfare and other issues. He added that if the Commission
granted a Special Permit with existing issues, then the City would be obligated to keep
the Special Permit unless conditions changed.
With no other comments in favor or opposition, Chairman Gantt closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner DePuy expressed concerns that the applicant’s plan was not solidified and
hinged on whether or not the tenant on the east side of the building remained. She also
stated that enough items were not changing to make the request palatable and that it was
as if the applicant was applying a band-aid to the situation while waiting for something
else to happen.
Commissioner Hand pointed out that the applicant’s property was located in the
Arapaho/Collins Redevelopment and Enhancement area listed in the City’s 2009 Land
Use Plan, and even though the Commission had entertained a few self-storage warehouse
requests in the past, he felt the study on the Arapaho/Collins area should be finished
before any changes were made in the area. He added that another item that should be
4
considered was the value of the property and how it could be diminished if the Special
Permit was approved and again suggested that any changes wait until the study of the
area was finished.
Commissioner Bright stated that even with the suggested changes, he felt it would be
difficult to modify the property for the intended use.
Commissioner Frederick said she disagreed with Mr. Hand’s assertion that the
modifications on the property should wait because many of the challenging sites in the
City fell within one of the study areas. She added that putting off modifying properties to
a future time was not beneficial and suggested the applicant continue to work with staff
to refine the modifications.
Commission Linn stated he appreciated the fact that the applicant was trying to find a
solution to make the vacant portion of the warehouse profitable; however, he felt the plan
was incomplete and questioned the commitment level to the plan.
Commissioner Maxwell felt there were still functionality issues with the plan and it
needed additional work, but that he was inclined to agree with Ms. Frederick about
locking the landowners in until the study was completed. He added as a proposed use it
was okay, but there were still a lot of problems to address to make the plan work.
Commissioner DePuy acknowledged that she was usually the one bringing up the fact
that a property was in a study area, but she did not have a problem with the property
becoming a self-storage warehouse. She also had a concern over the level of
commitment to the proposed plan, suggested the applicant follow the recommendations
of the staff, and the landscaping should be combined and completed in Phase 1.
Chairman Gantt noted that in December 2011, the Commission made a motion to deny
the request, which subsequently failed and a motion was made and passed to continue the
item, but in his opinion the current proposal still has a lot of challenges to overcome and
he could not support the plan as presented. He understood how difficult the site was to
modify, and as for waiting for a redevelopment/enhancement study to be completed, the
Commission could put a time limit on the Special Permit.
Commissioner Bright asked what other changes could be made, other than the existing
recommendations, to make the site functional for the intended use.
Mr. Chavez replied that it would fall closer in line to the previous exhibit provided as a
staff recommendation, but the changes would truly be a major modification to the site.
Also, as the Commission is aware, the applicant wants to maintain the functionality of
both a self-storage warehouse as well as the Verizon lease, which makes it difficult to do
both on the site.
Commissioner Maxwell commented that continuing the request without giving the
applicant some direction would leave the item in a stalemate.
Chairman Gantt replied that if the request was denied, the applicant could appeal their
request to the City Council, or if the request was continued it would have to come back
before the Commission before going to the Council. He added that he was not sure if
5
continuing the request was a viable option because the applicant and staff had already
met regarding the changes needed to make the site functional for the intended use.
Commissioner Maxwell stated that it seemed that the Commission could recommend a
continuation prior to taking final action on the request based on staff’s recommended
motion regarding revision of the Concept Plan in accordance with the Commission’s
direction.
Chairman Gantt explained that a motion could be made for a continuance and the
applicant would come back before the Commission, or the motion could be made to
recommend approval and direct the applicant to make changes before going to the City
Council. He asked staff if a motion was made to recommended approval with
modifications, would the applicant have to come back before the Commission.
Mr. Chavez replied no, but the Commission should only consider making that motion if
the Commission was comfortable with the applicant making the suggested modifications,
and suggested asking the applicant how far he was willing to go on the modifications.
Mr. Smith stated that the request had been discussed many times and he asked the
Commission to tell him exactly what they would approve; would the Commission
approve the request if all the modifications suggested by staff were made.
Commissioner Linn asked if the applicant could confirm they would complete all the
recommendations presented by staff in Exhibit D.
Mr. Smith replied that he had a tenant in half the space and could not remove any of the
parking or ramps that are available under their lease.
Commissioner Linn stated that he understood the constraints the applicant was facing and
that was why he made the motion to recommend denial of the request at the December
2011 meeting.
Chairman Gantt suggested there may have been a miscommunication regarding the
expansion of the center driveway and the addition of two additional driveways on either
side, but there was still the problem of the circulation in terms of the dock on the eastern
side that is used by Verizon and widening and reconfiguring the driveways along Alpha
Road. He added that the placement of the dumpster was also a concern, but if a driveway
could be added along Bowser Road that would allow the trash trucks to pull in and back
out that it might be acceptable.
Chairman Gantt asked if the applicant would add the landscaping in one phase and was
he flexible with aligning the driveways along Alpha Road.
Mr. Smith said he could do all the landscaping changes in Phase 1, but was concerned
about making any changes to the centrally located driveway on Alpha Road because it
was a common area that was used by the existing tenant.
Chairman Gantt stated that the staff was recommending adding driveways on either side
of the main driveway to the ramp and suggested the applicant could work with the staff to
reconfigure that area.
6
Mr. Smith said that it would be a better traffic flow if the driveways were put at each end
of the lot, and along with angled parking, that would make it easier to go in one end of
the lot and out the other.
Chairman Gantt noted that Exhibit D would probably not be feasible because of the
commitments to the existing tenant, but thought there might be an opportunity if the
driveways were reconfigured and the location of the dumpster could be determined. He
added that if the applicant was willing to work with staff and implement some of their
recommendations, the Commission would be willing to continue the item.
Mr. Smith replied that he would like to work on the recommendations, but did not want
to waste anyone’s time if an agreement could not be reached with what he wanted to do
with the property.
Chairman Gantt stated he understood and the applicant could choose to withdraw the
application even if the Commission voted to continue the item. He added that the
Commission was looking for a commitment level from the applicant to work on the
recommendations and possibly make more changes to the plan.
Mr. Smith replied that his sole purpose in submitting the request again was to get it
approved. He added that the property was an important asset and thought it might be
time for it to transition into another use, but again asked what the Commission would
approve because he felt the current discussion was similar to that of the December 2011
meeting.
Chairman Gantt stated that if the applicant was willing to work with staff regarding their
concerns, the Commission would most likely take a more favorable view of the request.
Commissioner Maxwell stated that based on the comments from the Commission, he did
not think the item was going to be approved, or could guarantee the applicant that it
would be passed if and when the item was brought back before the Commission. He
added that he would like to make a motion, but would not be including the dumpster
location because the staff’s minimum recommendation might impede the usefulness of
the overhead door, which would help get the larger trucks out of the driving aisles.
Motion:
Commissioner Maxwell made a motion to continue Zoning File 11-24
indefinitely with recommendations that the applicant work with staff to incorporate the
three driveways, add the additional five feet of landscape, and that all landscaping be
incorporated into Phase 1; second by Commissioner DePuy.
Chairman Gantt pointed out that staff had stated there would be a safety issue
with the trash trucks backing up around a blind corner if the dumpster was left in
its current location, and that the motion with no change in the dumpster location
was a concern. He suggested that the motion could be changed to say “the
applicant and staff could work together to find a more suitable agreed upon
location.”
Mr. Chavez noted that Sanitation would have to approve the dumpster location,
confirmed that the site was difficult from a design stand point, and that staff was
7
looking at moving the dumpster to the east side of the building, but with the
existing tenant on that side it would serve no purpose.
Commissioner Maxwell stated that he would amend his motion to include the
verbiage suggested by Chairman Gantt. Ms. DePuy concurred.
Motion passed 5-2 with Commissioners Bright and Hand opposed.
8
Staff Report
TO:
FROM:
Chris Shacklett, Planner CS
DATE:
April 27, 2012
RE:
Zoning File 11-24: Bowser Self-Service Warehouse
REQUEST:
Approval of a Special Permit for a climate controlled self-service warehouse with modified
development standards within an existing 40,000-square foot office/warehouse building. The
subject 1.6 acre site is located at 906 N. Bowser Road, southeast corner of Bowser Road and
Alpha Drive and is zoned I-FP(2) Industrial.
This item was continued at the Commission’s December 20, 2011 and March 20, 2012 public
hearings to allow staff and the applicant to further refine the proposed Concept Site Plan for the
proposed use. The applicant has resubmitted a revised Zoning Site Plan (Exhibit E) that reflects
the extent to which the applicant is willing to make site modifications.
APPLICANT / PROPERTY OWNER:
Kenneth R. Smith / Heath Asset Management, LP
ADJACENT ROADWAYS:
Bowser Road: Four-lane, divided major collector; 4,900 vehicles per day on all lanes,
northbound and southbound, south of Alpha Drive (May 2009).
Alpha Drive: Two-lane, local street, no traffic counts available.
Industrial Drive: Two-lane, local street, no traffic counts available.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN:
Enhancement/Redevelopment
These are areas where reinvestment and redevelopment is encouraged. Further study may be
necessary to understand the full potential for redevelopment. This property is located in the East
Arapaho/Collins enhancement/redevelopment area. This area has been challenged in recent years
by evolving markets, technology, and user requirements. Redevelopment, enhancement, and
building format changes should be considered. Mid-rise office uses are appropriate throughout the
area and mixed-use buildings with ground-floor retail could be appropriate at key locations.
Future Land Uses of Surrounding Area:
North:
South:
East:
West:
TRAFFIC/ INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS:
The requested zoning amendment will not have any significant impacts on the surrounding
roadway system or the existing utilities in the area.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Background:
The 40,000-square foot building was originally constructed in the late 1960’s and has been
continuously occupied for approximately forty (40) years by MCI and, most recently Verizon,
who occupies the eastern half of the building and may be vacating the building in the next few
years. As developed the site is non-conforming with respect to driveway design standards
(location, width and throat depth), landscaping and sidewalks.
The applicant completed a market study, which suggested the need for additional climate
controlled storage in Richardson. The applicant desires to convert the building to a self-service
warehouse to create a secondary use for a 40-year old building in an industrial neighborhood in a
very difficult rental market. Lastly, the applicant feels the climate controlled storage option will
complement other self-service warehouse facilities in the area that do not offer the climate
controlled option.
The following briefly describes the alternatives that have been considered by the Commission:
December 20, 2011 CPC Meeting
The applicant’s first Concept Site Plan (Exhibit B), depicted no proposed site improvements or
mitigations to the non-conforming site elements. The applicant’s desire was to utilize the site in
its current non-conforming configuration for the proposed use, while also maximizing flexibility
of land uses in the future. Staff proposed a Concept Site Plan (Exhibit C) to the applicant that
could be implemented to mitigate these issues; however, the applicant chose not to incorporate
the proposed site modifications due to the cost associated with the improvements and because if
implemented, the site could not be reverted back to a warehouse facility as it exists today.
X:\Zoning\Zoning Cases\2011\ZF 11-24 Climate Control Self Storage - 906 N Bowser\2012-05-01 CPC Packet Info\ZF 1124 Staff
Report.doc
2
March 20, 2012 CPC Meeting
The applicant’s second Concept Site Plan (Exhibit D) indicated a two (2) phase conversion of the
40,000 square foot building into a climate controlled self-storage facility. The first phase
converts the western 20,000 square feet of the building into storage units, with the eastern 20,000
square feet reserved for Verizon, the existing tenant. The development, at build-out, would
support 2,000 square feet of office space, including a 500-square foot office store front with
awnings, 300 storage units, 1,351 square feet or 1.9% of landscaping, 43 parking spaces; (41
spaces required), three (3) modified driveways on Alpha Drive (non-conforming) and an existing
non-conforming driveway on Industrial Drive, 2,294 square feet of parkway landscape area along
Alpha Drive and Industrial Drive and a double dumpster enclosure at the southwest property line.
The concept site plan conformed to the parking requirements for Phase I and Phase II
development scenarios; however, the proposed modifications to the existing site elements were
minor in nature and do not address the functional aspects related to a self-service warehouse.
These elements include safe and efficient site access and on-site vehicular maneuverability and
circulation for customers and service providers.
UPDATE:
Exhibit E represents the applicant’s revised Zoning Site Plan which indicates a two (2) phase
conversion of the 40,000 square foot building into a climate controlled self-storage facility.
Phase I converts the western 20,000 square feet of the building into storage units, with the
eastern 20,000 square feet reserved for Verizon, the existing tenant, and includes the following:
•
A 500-square foot office store front with awnings at the northwest corner of the building
•
120 storage units
•
4% landscaping or 2,755 square feet (none previously existed)
•
Re-established parkways along Alpha Drive (5-foot wide sidewalks and 4.5-foot wide
landscape parkway) and Industrial Drive (5-foot wide sidewalks and 2-foot wide
landscape parkway). The landscape area accounts for approximately 1,496 square feet.
•
35 parking spaces provided, 33 spaces required (120 storage units + office and the
Verizon facility)
•
Two (2) modified driveways on Alpha Drive
•
A dumpster enclosure, centrally located on the north side of the facility
Phase II will be implemented when Verizon vacates the eastern half of the building in the future
and converts the remaining eastern 20,000 square feet of the building into self-service warehouse
units and includes the following:
•
1,500 square feet of additional office space
•
105 additional storage units
•
4% additional landscaping or an additional 2,633 square feet
•
20 parking spaces provided, 12 spaces required (105 storage units + 1,500 sq. ft. office)
Report.doc
3
•
Elimination of the eastern most driveway on Alpha Drive
•
A modified driveway on Industrial Drive (conforming)
At build-out, the site will support:
•
A 2,000-square foot office space
•
225 storage units
•
5,388 square feet of landscaping or 8% of the site area
•
28 parking spaces provided; 20 spaces required (2,000 square foot office + 225 storage
units)
•
1,649 square feet of parkway landscape area along Alpha Drive and Industrial Drive
With the exception of those items discussed below, the proposed Zoning Site Plan (Exhibit E)
conforms to the City’s development standards.
Issues Related to the Request
As part of the review process, staff identified several remaining non-conforming issues with the
proposed Zoning Site Plan. The issues include driveway throat depths and driveway spacing,
landscape buffer widths, landscape islands and dumpster enclosure design standards.
Driveway Throat Depths and Spacing
The site is currently accessed from three (3) driveways on Alpha Drive and one (1) driveway on
Industrial Drive which are all non-conforming (location, width and driveway throat depth).
Within the limits of Phase I and with the exception of driveway throat depths and spacing
between driveways, the proposed driveways along Alpha Drive conform to the City’s Driveway
Design Standards. As proposed, the driveway throat depth is eighteen (18) feet, while twentyeight (28) feet is required.
Within the limits of Phase II, the center most driveway along Alpha Drive which serves as a
ramp for an elevated loading dock will be modified to isolate the ramp from the balance of the
site through the construction of adjacent driveways. In doing so, the driveways are nonconforming with respect to spacing between driveway openings and driveway throat depths
(proposed driveway on east side of loading dock driveway). However, the driveway for the
loading dock is designed for a single user and function, and should not create an issue.
The proposed driveway throat depths along Alpha Drive are directly related to the lack of area
between the property line and the existing building, and the need to maximize the depth of
landscape buffer widths, while maximizing the on-site vehicular maneuvering area which
improves the functionality of the site for the intended use.
Landscape Buffer Widths
The site is currently void of landscape areas. The City’s landscape policy requires a minimum
10-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to a public street. As proposed, an 8-foot wide landscape
Report.doc
4
buffer is provided along a majority of Bowser Road, along the limits of Phase I adjacent to Alpha
Drive and a 588-square foot landscape island at the northeast corner of the site.
Phase II or at build-out, creates identical buffer widths as in Phase I for the balance of Alpha
Drive and provides a 5-foot landscape buffer along Industrial Drive.
The proposed landscape buffer widths along Bowser Road, Alpha Drive and Industrial Drive are
directly related to the lack of area between the property line and the existing building and the
need to maximize the on-site vehicular maneuvering area which improves the functionality of the
site for the intended use.
Landscape Islands – At ends of parking rows
The City’s landscape policy requires landscape islands to be provided at the ends of each row of
parking spaces. The row of parking abutting the building is void of landscape islands.
The applicant’s preference is to limit the amount of pervious surface directly adjacent to the
building due to foundation issues and the location of underground utilities that are located
adjacent to the building.
Dumpster Enclosure Design Standards
As proposed, the angle of the dumpster enclosure exceeds the maximum angle of approach for a
sanitation truck as allowed in the City’s design standards. The maximum angle permitted is 30°
(thirty degrees), while the proposed is 50° (fifty degrees). The previously proposed location
(Exhibit D); southwest corner, adjacent to the building, created an unsafe situation by requiring
the sanitation truck to back up seventy (70) feet after servicing the dumpster into a blind corner
created by the building. The proposed location and design eliminates the subject issue.
Although the layout exceeds the maximum angle of approach for a sanitation truck, accessibility
to the location of the dumpster enclosure is unobstructed due to the alignment of the driveway
and the dumpster enclosure’s angle of approach.
Conclusion
With the exception of those items above, the proposed Zoning Site Plan (Exhibit E) mitigates a
majority of the functional site issues identified by staff on previous submittals (Exhibits B and
D). The proposed site improvements enhance the appearance of the site, while still allowing the
physically constrained site to function in an appropriate manner.
Correspondence: As of this date, no correspondence has been received.
Motion:
The Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council regarding this
request. The Commission may approve the request, add or amend conditions, or
recommend denial of the request.
Should the Commission recommend approval of the applicant’s request as presented,
the motion should include the following:
a.
The self-service warehouse shall be constructed in substantial conformance
with the Zoning Site Plan attached as Exhibit “E”.
Report.doc
5
b.
Prior to occupancy and use of the western 20,000 square feet of the existing
40,000 square building as a self-storage warehouse all site improvements
indicated for Phase I shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the
Zoning Site Plan attached as Exhibit “E”.
c.
Prior to occupancy and use of the eastern 20,000 square feet of the existing
40,000 square building as a self-storage warehouse all site improvements
indicated for Phase II shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the
Zoning Site Plan attached as Exhibit “E”.
d.
All outdoor storage and display is prohibited.
Council Hearing Date:
The earliest possible Council hearing date is June 11, 2012.
Report.doc
6
Notice of Public Hearing
City Plan Commission ▪ Richardson, Texas
An application has been received by the City of Richardson for a:
SPECIAL PERMIT
File No./Name:
Property Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Current Zoning:
Request:
ZF 11-24 / Richardson Climate Control Self Storage
906 N. Bowser Road (See map on reverse side)
I-FP(2) Industrial District
Special Permit for self-service warehouse with modified
development standards.
The City Plan Commission will consider this request at a public hearing on:
TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2012
7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
Richardson City Hall, 411 W. Arapaho Road
Richardson, Texas
This notice has been sent to all owners of real property within 200 feet of the request; as such
ownership appears on the last approved city tax roll.
Process for Public Input: A maximum of 15 minutes will be allocated to the applicant and to
those in favor of the request for purposes of addressing the City Plan Commission. A maximum
of 15 minutes will also be allocated to those in opposition to the request. Time required to
respond to questions by the City Plan Commission is excluded from each 15 minute period.
Persons who are unable to attend, but would like their views to be made a part of the public
record, may send signed, written comments, referencing the file number above, prior to the date
of the hearing to: Dept. of Development Services, PO Box 830309, Richardson, TX 75083.
The City Plan Commission may recommend approval of the request as presented, recommend
approval with additional conditions or recommend denial. Final approval of this application
requires action by the City Council.
Agenda: The City Plan Commission agenda for this meeting will be posted on the City of
Richardson website the Saturday before the public hearing. For a copy of the agenda, please
go to: http://www.cor.net/DevelopmentServices.aspx?id=13682.
For additional information, please contact the Dept. of Development Services at 972-744-4240
and reference Zoning File number ZF 11-24.
Date Posted and Mailed: 04/20/12
Development Services Department ▪ City of Richardson, Texas
411 W. Arapaho Road, Room 204, Richardson, Texas 75080 ▪ 972-744-4240 ▪ www.cor.net
HONEYWELL INC
101 COLUMBIA RD
PO BOX 1057
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962-1057
RIETSCH KURT W
16836 MARINABAY DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649-2914
ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS LLC
1800 OVERVIEW DR
ROCK HILL, SC 29730-7463
RW SCOTT LLC
907 N BOWSER RD
RICHARDSON, TX 75081-2823
TECHCONCEPTS LTD
903 N BOWSER RD STE 170
HEATH ASSET MGT L P
4925 GREENVILLE AVE STE 915
DALLAS, TX 75206-4021
PCCP DALLAS ACQUISITIONS I
601 UNION ST STE 5300
SEATTLE, WA 98101-1356
MATZDORF JANEIL
PO BOX 830813
M REYNOLDS PPTIES LTD
% MERION B REYNOLDS
605 N BOWSER RD
CWBC PROPERTY LLC DBA
CHANG & CHEN PROPERTY
501 INDUSTRIAL DR STE 101
FRISCO ENTERPRISES INC
ATTN: MR RICHARD SAMADI
508 N BOWSER RD
Kenneth Smith
Health Asset Management LP dba
Climate Control Self Storage
4925 Greenville Ave, Suite 915
Dallas, TX 75206
ZF 11-24
Notification List
Agenda
Item 3
ZONING FILE 12-05
Attachments:
1. Staff Report
2. Zoning Map
3. Aerial Map
4. Oblique Aerial Looking North
5. Zoning Exhibit (Exhibit B)
6. Building Elevations (Exhibit C)
7. Color Rendering (Exhibit D)
8. Site Photos (Exhibits E-1 through E-3)
12. Ordinance 2237-A
X:\Zoning\Zoning Cases\2012\ZF 12-05 Courtesy Nissan Repair Shop - 1700 Gateway\2012-05-01 CPC Packet Info\ZF 1205
Attachment List.docxe
Staff Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
April 27, 2012
RE:
Zoning File 12-05: Courtesy Nissan Motor Vehicle Repair Shop-Major – 1700
Gateway Blvd
REQUEST:
Special Permit for a “motor vehicle repair shop – major” located at 1700 Gateway Boulevard to
be used in conjunction with the adjacent “motor vehicle sales/leasing, new” use (Courtesy
Nissan).
Darryl M. Burman – Group 1 Realty, Inc.
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT:
The property is currently vacant. Two office (2) buildings totaling approximately 21,500 square
feet were recently demolished.
ADJACENT ROADWAYS:
Central Expressway: Freeway/Turnpike; 250,000 vehicles per day on all lanes, northbound and
southbound, south of Campbell Road (2010).
Gateway Boulevard: Four-lane, undivided local street; no traffic counts are available.
North:
South:
East:
West:
Retail/Commercial; C-M Commercial
Office; O-M Office
Regional Employment
Higher density development is appropriate with the primary use being high-rise office.
Secondary uses include retail centers and entertainment venues.
North:
South:
East:
West:
Regional Employment
Regional Employment
Regional Employment
Regional Employment
EXISTING ZONING:
C-M Commercial (Ordinance Number 2237-A).
The requested will not have any significant impacts on the surrounding infrastructure or
transportation system.
APPLICANT’S STATEMENT
(Please refer to the complete Applicant’s Statement.)
STAFF COMMENTS:
Background:
In 2008, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) was amended to require several motor
vehicle related uses, including vehicle repair shops to acquire a Special Permit. Prior to the
amendment, motor vehicle repair shops were allowed by-right in C-M Commercial Districts.
Group 1 Realty acquired the subject property in 2010 and demolished the existing buildings in
2011.
The owner inquired about the construction of a motor vehicle repair shop – major on the subject
lot to be used by Courtesy Nissan; however, the existing Courtesy Nissan lot and the subject
property are located on separately platted lots. Typically, a motor vehicle repair shop is allowed
by-right when located on the same lot as a new car dealership. As defined, “motor vehicle
sales/leasing, new” includes service and repair of motor vehicles.
Staff initially advised the applicant that if the lots could be platted into a single lot, a Special
Permit would not be required; however, the two (2) lots are owned by separate entities and could
not be platted together. Therefore, the proposed use requires a Special Permit since the proposed
use is located on a separate lot from the new car dealership (Courtesy Nissan).
Applicant’s Request:
The applicant’s proposed development is described below:
•
Lot Area: 1.74 acres / 75,880 square feet
•
Building Area: 25,029 square feet
o 1st story: 19,865 square feet
o 2nd story: 5,164 square feet
o Rooftop parking deck: 21,617 square feet
X:\Zoning\Zoning Cases\2012\ZF 12-05 Courtesy Nissan Repair Shop - 1700 Gateway\2012-05-01 CPC Packet Info\ZF 1205 Staff
Report.doc
2
•
Setbacks: 40 feet along Gateway Boulevard
•
Number of Parking Spaces: 45 required/180 proposed (113 surface and 67 rooftop)
•
Building Height: three (3) stories / thirty-four (34) feet to top of stair tower (3rd story is
rooftop parking deck)
•
Building Materials: The proposed building will be 100% masonry and constructed of thin
brick veneer pre-cast concrete panels. The cap of the building façade will be constructed
of smooth concrete panels. The building colors will consist of different shades of grey
(See Exhibits C and D).
•
Landscaping Percentage: Required - 7% (3,560 square feet) of gross site area less
building area (Ordinance 2237-A) / Proposed - 7.1% (5,400 square feet) of total gross site
area.
•
Other Landscape Requirements: 20-foot landscape buffer required along Gateway Blvd
to include canopy trees, ornamental trees, and an existing berm per Ordinance 2237-A.
Additional shrubs and a tubular steel fence with masonry columns will also be placed in
the buffer to provide additional screening of the west elevation of the building.
Staff Concerns Related to the Request:
West Elevation – Due to the location of the proposed bay doors along the west building elevation
which face onto Gateway Boulevard and lack of architectural relief, staff recommended that the
applicant:
•
Reconfigure the internal layout of the facility and relocate the bay doors so that they do
not face Gateway Boulevard. This modification would allow the drive aisle along the
west side of the building to be removed and would increase the width of the landscape
buffer along Gateway Boulevard.
o The applicant stated the modification was not possible because the northern most bay
door on the west elevation would serve as an additional vehicle access point for
emergency purposes if the entrance on the north side of the building ever failed. The
smaller bay doors serve the pre-delivery inspection area and do not access the
remainder of the building. These doors will be closed unless they are being used for
vehicles to enter and exit and will not remain open for extended periods of time.
In response, the applicant will provide additional screening within the landscape
buffer along Gateway Boulevard in the form of landscape beds with shrubs and a steel
tubular fence with masonry columns.
•
Provide architectural relief and/or projections.
In response, the applicant projected the stair towers on the north and south sides of the
elevation eight (8) inches from the face of the building elevation to provide
architectural relief and will provide varying brick patterns (running, stacked and
rowlock bonds) throughout the building.
Report.doc
3
Conclusion:
The intent of the CZO amendment in 2008 was to allow new car dealerships to continue to
operate as they had in the past without acquiring a Special Permit, but to require stand-alone
repair shops and other motor vehicle related uses, which were becoming increasingly prevalent,
to acquire a Special Permit thus allowing the City to examine the appropriateness of such uses on
a case by case basis.
In this case, the proposed motor vehicle repair shop – major will function like a typical
dealership related repair shop, but will be located on a separate yet adjacent lot. As part of the
proposed conditions, staff recommends that the proposed use be allowed but only in conjunction
with a new car dealership located on the existing Courtesy Nissan site.
Motion:
request. The Commission may approve the request, add or amend conditions, or
recommend denial of the request.
Should the CPC accept the applicant’s request as presented, the motion should
include the following:
1. The Special Permit for a motor vehicle repair shop – major is limited to the
area shown on the attached concept plan, attached as Exhibit “B” and made a
part thereof, and which is hereby approved.
2. The motor vehicle repair shop – major shall be constructed in substantial
conformance with the concept plan and building elevations attached as Exhibit
“C”.
3. The motor vehicle repair shop – major shall only be allowed in conjunction
with a motor vehicle sales/leasing, new use located on the lot to the east.
4. The motor vehicle sales/leasing, new use located on the lot to the east shall be
allowed to store vehicles on the subject property.
5. No gates across the driveways shall be allowed along Gateway Boulevard or
between the subject property and lot to the east.
Council Hearing Date: The earliest possible City Council hearing date is June 11, 2012.
Report.doc
4
Applicant’s Statement
Application for Special Permit
Courtesy Nissan Auto Dealership
City of Richardson, TX
April 18, 2012
As required by a Special Permit Application, this document states the purpose of the request. The
Applicant, Group 1 Automotive, operates an automobile dealership (hereafter, “Courtesy Nissan”) on Lot
2, Block A. That property is owned by an entity named Commodore Partners LTD. Courtesy Nissan
leases that parcel from Commodore Partners LTD. The Courtesy Nissan dealership is in need of
additional automobile service facilities. Accordingly, Group 1 Automotive purchased the property (Lot 2A,
Block A) immediately to the west.
The three-story building was designed to add 18 service bays on the ground floor. The remainder of the
ground floor will house tire storage, parts storage, technician support areas, administrative areas and predelivery inspection areas. A mezzanine floor (second floor) was added to house additional parts to
facilitate the service operation. In order to supply additional on-site parking of new vehicles, the rooftop
was designed to accommodate 67 parking spaces.
The proposed building will be utilized only by employees of the Courtesy Nissan facility. Customers will
drop off their vehicle for service on the existing Courtesy Nissan facility and a service technician will
deliver the vehicle to either the existing service building or this proposed service building. When service
is completed, a service technician will deliver the vehicle back to Courtesy Nissan for it to be picked up
the by customer.
A Special Permit for this proposed development would not be required if the existing Courtesy Nissan
property and the subject property were to be re-platted as one parcel. However, this cannot be
accomplished as the two parcels are under different ownership. Courtesy Nissan leases the existing Lot
2 from Commodore Partners and Group 1 Automotive owns Lot 2A. As such, the Applicant requests the
City grant a Special Permit to operate the existing Courtesy Nissan Automobile Dealership on Lot 2A of
Block A.
The remainder of this development will comply with the specific requirements of the existing zoning found
in Ordinance 1081-A and 2237-A with the exception of the requirement to provide landscaping and/or a
buffer along the northern and southern property lines of Lot 2A. The Applicant requests relief from the
zoning ordinance to provide that buffer and to instead leave the existing parking areas along those
property lines as is.
SPECIAL PERMIT
File No./Name:
Property Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Current Zoning:
Request:
ZF 12-05 / Motor Vehicle Repair Shop – Major
Darryl M. Burman, VP / Group 1 Realty, Inc.
Darryl M. Burman, VP / Group 1 Realty, Inc.
1700 Gateway Boulevard (See map on reverse side)
C-M Commercial
A request by Darryl M. Burman, representing Group 1 Realty, Inc., for
a Special Permit for a motor vehicle repair shop – major to be located
at 1700 Gateway Boulevard which is to be used in conjunction with the
existing Courtesy Nissan dealership located at 1777 N. Central
Expressway.
7:00 p.m.
Richardson, Texas
This notice has been sent to all owners of real property within 200 feet of the request; as such ownership appears on
the last approved city tax roll.
Process for Public Input: A maximum of 15 minutes will be allocated to the applicant and to those in favor of the
request for purposes of addressing the City Plan Commission. A maximum of 15 minutes will also be allocated to
those in opposition to the request. Time required to respond to questions by the City Plan Commission is excluded
from each 15 minute period.
Persons who are unable to attend, but would like their views to be made a part of the public record, may send signed,
written comments, referencing the file number above, prior to the date of the hearing to: Dept. of Development
Services, PO Box 830309, Richardson, TX 75083.
The City Plan Commission may recommend approval of the request as presented, recommend approval with
additional conditions or recommend denial. Final approval of this application requires action by the City Council.
Agenda: The City Plan Commission agenda for this meeting will be posted on the City of Richardson website the
Saturday
before
the
public
hearing.
For
a
copy
of
the
agenda,
please
go
to:
http://www.cor.net/DevelopmentServices.aspx?id=13682.
For additional information, please contact the Dept. of Development Services at 972-744-4240 and reference Zoning
File number ZF 12-05.
DALLAS UNC LLC
PO BOX 51620
AMARILLO, TX 79159-1620
WINFREE ACADEMY CHARTER SCH
6221 RIVERSIDE DR STE 110
IRVING, TX 75039-3529
HM NM INC
1655 N CENTRAL EXPY
COMMODORE PARTNERS LTD
800 GESSNER RD STE 500
HOUSTON, TX 77024-4498
GROUP 1 REALTY INC
800 GESSNER RD STE 500
HOUSTON, TX 77024-4498
BAILLARGEON FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
1819 N CENTRAL EXPY
DARRYL M BURMAN
GROUP 1 REALTY, INC.
800 GESSNER, SUITE 500
HOUSTON, TX 77024
CARL WESCOTT
COMMODORE PARTNERS LTD
100 CRESCENT CT., SUITE 1620
DALLAS, TX 75201
ZF 12-05
Notification List
ORDINANCE NO.
2237-A
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RICHARDSON, TEXAS, AMENDING
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RICHARDSON,
AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, SO AS TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON A 1.742
ACRE TRACT FROM C-M COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH SPECIAL CONDI
TIONS TO C-M COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH DIFFERENT SPECIAL
CONDITIONS, SAID TRACT OF LAND BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE MOST NORTHERLY R.O.W. LINE OF THE
GULF COLORADO AND SANTA FE RAILROAD AND THE MOST WESTERLY
R.O. W. LINE OF U. S. HIGHWAY 75; THENCE, NORTH 27 ° 2 9' 00." EAST,
ALONG SAID R.O.W. A DISTANCE OF 1495.39 FEET TO AN ANGLE
POINT; THENCE, NORTH 62°31'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 168.45 FEET
TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE, SOUTH 89°35'40" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
225.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, SOUTH 89°35'40"
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 249.00 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE,
NORTH 00°24'20" WEST, 304.74 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE,
NORTH 89°35'40" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 249.00 FEET TO AN ANGLE
POINT; THENCE, SOUTH 00°24'20" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 304.74 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING 75,880 SQUARE FEET OR
1.742 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM
OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND DECLAR
ING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Richardson, and the governing body of the City of Richardson,
in compliance with the laws of the City of Richardson, have
given the requisite notices by pUblication and otherwise, and
after holding due hearings and affording a full and fair hear
ing to all the property owners generally, and to all persons
interested and situated in the affected area and in the
vicinity thereof, and in the exercise of its legislative dis
cretion, have concluded that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
should be amended; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 'OF THE CITY OF
RICHARDSON, TEXAS:
,
SECTION 1. That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Richardson, Texas, duly passed by the governing
body of the City of Richardson on the 5th day of June, 1956,
as heretofore amended, be, and the same is hereby amended by
amending the Zoning Map of the City of Richardson, so as to
give the following tract of land a C-M Commercial District
classification with different special conditions, to-wit:
(
I~-·
i ....:
l
c'::
COMMENCING at a point on the most Northerly R.O.W.
line of the Gulf Colorado and Santa Fe Railroad and
the most Westerly R.O.W. line of U. S. Highway 75;
THENCE, North 27°29'00" East, along said R.b.w. a
distance of 1495.39 feet to an angle point;
THENCE, North 62°31'00" West, a distance of 168.45
feet to an angle point;
THENCE, South 89°35'40" West, a distance of 225.47
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE, South 89°35'40" West, a distance of 249.00
THENCE, North 00°24'20" West, 304.74 feet to an angle
point;
THENCE, North 89°35'40" East, a distance of 249.00
THENCE, South 00°24'20" East, a distance of 304.74
feet to the POINT OF ~EGINNING and CONTAINING 75,880
Square Feet or 1.742.Acres of Land, more or less.
\,
SECTION 2. That the above tract is zoned subject to the
following special conditions:
(a) A minimum of 7% of the gross site, less
building area, shall be landscaped.
(b) A 20-foot wide landscaped area shall be
required along the west side of this tract, adjacent
to Gateway Blvd. The landscaping in this 20-foot
wide strip shall consist of live planting and berms.
(c)
There shall be no retail gasoline service
stations allowed under the provisions of this ordi
nance.
(d)
On~site parking is to be provided in accord
ance with the following schedule:
(i)
(ii)
1.5 parking spaces shall be provided
per guest room for a hotel or motor
hotel.
All other parking shall be in accordance
with the "C-M" Commercial District Regu
lations in the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance.
(e)
The number of motor vehicle dealerships
in the "C-M" tract under Ordinance No. 1081-A
shall be limited to two (2) motor vehicle dealer
ships which shall be engaged only in sale or repair
of automobiles, trucks or recreational veh~cles,
excluding motorcycles and limited to trucks up to a
maximum size of two and one-half (2-1/2) tons.
SECTION 3. That all provisions of the ordinances of
the City of Richardson in conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance be, and the same are hereby repealed and all
other provisions of ordinances of the City of Richardson
not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. That any person, firm or corporation vio
lating any of the provisions or terms of this ordinance shall
be subject to the same penalty as provided for in the Compre
hensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Richardson, as
heretofore amended, and upon conviction shall be punished by
a fine not to exceed the sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00)
for each offense; and each and every day such violation
shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 5. Whereas ,'it appears that the above described
property requires that it'be given the above zoning classifi
cation in order to protect the public interest, comfort and
general welfare of the City of Richardson, and creates an
urgency and an emergency in the preservation of the public
health, safety and welfare, and requires that this ordinance
shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and
the publication of the caption of said ordinance, as the law
in such cases provides.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richardson,
Texas, on the
30th day of
March
, 1981.
APPROVED:
?J~-L
MAYOR
DULY RECORDED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/
Jld-IY«!', ~JU,
CITYATT~
~~~?
CITY SECRETARY
\
Zoning File 8101
Feb. 18, 1981
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City Council will hold a public hearing at 7:30 p. m., March 9, 1981,
at the City Hall, 411 West Arapaho Road, Richardson, Te~as, to consider
a request by Midway Development Co., Inc. for C-M zoning with special
conditions to develop an office building. The 1.742 acre tract of land
is part of Lot 2, Block A, Gateway Plaza Addition, and is located on the
east side of Gateway Blvd., south of Municipal Dr., north of Omni Dr.
and west of Central Expressway. The property is currently zoned C-M
with special conditions by Ordinance 108l-A, and is shown on the map
below.
...-----.------.---y------ --
7')0
92S-A
CoM
~~.;;.:a.........IaoM_ 200 I ARE A 0 F
-A
r 1"\- M
L
NOTICE BY
LETTER
922-A
I-MU)
S PL.
800
The public hearing will be held on the issue of a change in zoning into
the classification as requested or into a more restrictive classifica
tion. The City Plan Commission recommends approval of the request.
A maximum time of 20 minutes will be allocated to the applicant and those
favoring the issue of the public hearing. The applicant may reserve any
portion of the allocated 20 minutes for closing remarks following the
opposition. A maximum time limit of 20 minutes will be allocated to
those in opposition to the issue of the pUblic hearing. Time required
to respond to questions by the city Council is excluded from the 20
minute limitation.
j.::l'J1
As an interested property owner, it is important that you attend this
hearing or notify the Council of your feelings in this matter. If you
Agenda
Item 4
ZONING FILE 12-06
Attachments:
1. Staff Report
2. Zoning Map
3. Aerial Map
4. Oblique Aerial Looking West
5. Zoning Exhibit (Exhibit B)
6. Building Elevations (Exhibit C)
7. Color Rendering (Exhibit D)
8. Site Photos (Exhibits E-1 through E-3)
X:\Zoning\Zoning Cases\2012\ZF 12-06 Movie Theater - SWC BL & 75\2012-05-01 CPC Packet Info\ZF 1206 Attachment List.docxe
Staff Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
April 27, 2012
RE:
Zoning File 12-06: Planned Development – Movie Theater
REQUEST:
Rezone 16.85 acres from C-M Commercial with special conditions to PD Planned Development
to accommodate a movie theater at the Richardson Heights Shopping Center located at the
southwest corner of Central Expressway and Belt Line Road. The request includes standards
regarding the maximum height of the theater, the rear open space requirement for the rear of a
building adjacent to a residential zoning district, parking standards, and signage standards.
Tyler Isbell – SRS Real Estate Partners / Allen Hartman – Hartman Richardson Heights
Properties, LLC.
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT:
The property is currently developed as a multi-building retail shopping center and supports six
(6) retail buildings totaling 203,424 square feet.
ADJACENT ROADWAYS:
Central Expressway: Freeway/Turnpike; 26,154 vehicles per day on all lanes of southbound
frontage road between Belt Line Road and Spring Valley Road (2012).
Belt Line Road: Six-lane, divided arterial; 24,800 vehicles per day on all lanes, eastbound and
westbound between Inge Drive & Lindale Lane (May 2011).
North:
South:
East:
West:
Retail/Commercial & Single Family; C-M Commercial & R-1100-M Residential
Retail/Commercial; LR-M(2) Local Retail
Single Family; R-1100-M Residential
These are areas where reinvestment and redevelopment is encouraged. Further study may
be necessary to understand the full potential for redevelopment. This property is located in
the Central enhancement/redevelopment area and is part of the City’s Tax Increment
Finance (TIF) district. Enhancement/redevelopment should include new and renovated
office space, upgraded retail centers, and additional hospitality uses such as restaurant,
hotel, and entertainment.
North:
South:
East:
West:
Enhancement/Redevelopment & Neighborhood Residential
Regional Employment
Neighborhood Residential
EXISTING ZONING:
C-M Commercial (Ordinance Number 159-A).
The requested changes will not significantly impact the surrounding infrastructure. The applicant
will be providing a parking study addressing the parking deficiency on the site.
APPLICANT’S STATEMENT
(Please refer to the complete Applicant’s Statement.)
STAFF COMMENTS:
Background:
The subject property known as the Richardson Heights Shopping Center was constructed in the
late 1950’s and early 1960’s. In 1989, a variance was granted by the Zoning Board of
Adjustment (ZBA) to reduce the minimum landscaping percentage from 10% to 5.02% for a
development exceeding 75,000 square feet. The property was purchased by Shafer Property
Company in 2005, with plans to renovate the shopping center facades, paving, lighting, and
landscaping. In 2007, a variance was granted by the ZBA to allow up to 50% of the exterior
elevations to be non-masonry to accommodate proposed façade renovations. The site and
building facades were renovated in 2007 and 2008 to attract additional retailers to the shopping
center. Site updates included improvements to lighting, paving, and landscaping.
Applicant’s Request:
The applicant’s request is to accommodate a movie theater in Building B – formerly Pep Boys.
A movie theater is an allowed use in both the C-M Commercial District and in a PD Planned
Development District. The proposed zoning change is to accommodate specific development
standards that are necessary to accommodate a movie theater at this particular location.
X:\Zoning\Zoning Cases\2012\ZF 12-06 Movie Theater - SWC BL & 75\2012-05-01 CPC Packet Info\ZF 1206 Staff Report.doc
2
The theater will occupy approximately 35,350 square feet of the existing 39,407-square foot
building and will provide 744 seats in seven (7) theaters. The theater will be a movie grill type
of theater where patrons will be seated in a theater at tables and can order dinner during the
movie. They would be served by wait staff at their seats while watching the movie. The theater
includes an additional 4,000-square mezzanine addition to the space which will include the areas
for projection rooms. Information regarding the proposed theater and overall site is listed below:
•
Lot Area: 16.85 acres / 734,011 square feet
•
Building Area: Current total 203,424 square feet / Proposed total 207,424 square feet
with proposed 4,000-square foot mezzanine in proposed movie theater
o Building A – 53,154 square feet
o Building B – Current total 39,407 square feet / Proposed 43,407 square feet with
proposed 4,000-square foot mezzanine in proposed movie theater
o Building C – 35,710 square feet
o Building D – 37,818 square feet
o Building E – 11,713 square feet
o Building F – 25,622 square feet
•
Setbacks:
o
o
Front: 40 feet along Central Expressway and Belt Line Road
Rear (Open space requirement per Chapter 21 of the Code of OrdinancesSubdivision and Development Code: 60 feet where the rear of a building abuts
upon a residential district. Buildings A-C do not conform to this requirement
and are allowed to remain as existing non-conforming structures; Building B
is located approximately thirty-five (35) feet from the residential district to
the west.
•
Number of Parking Spaces: 1,155 required/988 proposed (per approved site plan). As
part of the PD, the applicant is requesting that a minimum of 988 parking spaces be
required for the subject property. A parking study has been conducted to
determine if 988 spaces is adequate for the site. The findings of the study should be
available prior to the meeting on May 1, 2012.
•
Building Height: One (1) story with a mezzanine/thirty-five (35) feet to top of the roof
and 47’6” to the top of the tallest façade element. The applicant is requesting a
building height standard of forty-eight (48) feet to accommodate the theater portion
of the building.
•
Building Materials: The building will be constructed with concrete tilt wall panels and
stone. The facades will incorporate stucco accent bands and corrugated metal for accent
features. The proposed masonry percentage for the three (3) facades is approximately
72% which exceeds the 50% minimum masonry percentage as approved by the ZBA in
2007.
•
Landscaping: 5.02% required per ZBA variance granted in 1989 / 10.6% provided per
approved landscape plan which includes enhanced paving and plant material.
3
Proposed PD Standards:
60-foot rear open space – Buildings A, B, and C are currently built within the 60-foot open space
area required where the rear of a building backs upon a residential zoning district. The 60-foot
measurement includes the adjacent alley right-of-way. The northwest corner of the building is
located approximately twenty (20) feet from the property line, and approximately thirty-five (35)
feet from the residential district to the west. The proposed movie theater will be located in
Building B, and the footprint of the building is proposed to remain unchanged.
Although the applicant is not proposing to modify the footprint of the building, staff suggested a
standard to acknowledge the existing 35-foot rear open space area to ensure the building is a
legal conforming structure.
Minimum Parking Standards – The applicant is requesting that a minimum of 988 parking spaces
be required for the subject property. The approved site plan (Exhibit B) shows the site has 988
approved parking spaces. Based on the current tenant mix for the shopping center, 1,155 parking
spaces are required per the City of Richardson parking standards which results in a 167-space
deficit. The applicant had a parking study conducted to determine if the site contains adequate
parking even though it does not meet the minimum parking requirements per the minimum City
of Richardson parking regulations.
The City of Richardson's parking regulations requires parking on a per square foot basis or a per
seat basis depending on the type of use. The following ratios are the City’s standard parking
ratios for the current and proposed uses in the Richardson Heights Shopping Center.
•
Retail: 30 spaces for the first 10,000 square feet / 1 space per 200 square feet for any
retail space over 10,000 square feet.
•
Restaurant: 1 space per 100 square feet.
•
Office: 1 space per 250 square feet.
•
Auto Repair: 5 spaces + 2 per service bay
•
Movie Theater: 1 space for every 3 seats.
In the recently approved West Spring Valley Corridor Planned Development District, a parking
ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet was approved for all retail, restaurant and office uses within
the district. If that ratio were applied the subject site, and the movie theater were still parked at 1
space per 3 seats, 936 parking spaces would be required. If these ratios were used, the subject
site would have a surplus of 52-spaces.
The Spring Valley Station District applies similar parking standards, except the requirement for a
movie theater is reduced to 1 space per 4 seats, which would result in 874 required parking
spaces. If these ratios were used, the subject site would have a surplus of 114-spaces.
The City has also been considering changes to the parking standards for several uses including
retail and movie theaters. Although these have not been adopted, a ratio of 1 space per 250
square feet of retail for centers greater than 50,000 square feet and a ratio of 1 space per 4 seats in
a movie theater have been consider by staff and are common parking standards utilized
4
throughout the metroplex. If these ratios were used in combination with the existing office
and restaurant ratios, the subject site would have a deficit of 122-spaces.
Building Height – The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance restricts the building height of 1-story
buildings to a maximum of twenty-five (25) feet. In addition to the twenty-five (25) foot height
restriction, a 4-foot parapet wall is allowed. Buildings are also limited to one (1) story, not to
exceed twenty-five (25) feet within 150 feet of a residential district. The proposed movie theater
will be a 1-story building located within 150 feet of a residential district. The proposed movie
theater will be approximately thirty-five (35) feet to the top of the roof. The highest element of
the façade will be approximately 47’6”. The façade elements that exceed thirty-five (35) feet
will be located on the east façade and the eastern corner of the north elevation, which will be
located further than 150 feet from the residential district to the west.
The proposed standard is necessary to accommodate the increased 1-story height that is typical of
movie theaters for the large screens and seating areas. The portion of the building where the
tallest façade elements will be located will be on the east side of the building, which is not within
150 feet of the residential district.
Signage – As part of the PD Planned Development request, the applicant has proposed sign
standards specific to this site. Generally all signage unless regulated through a PD is regulated
by the Community Services Department through Chapter 18 of the City of Richardson Code of
Ordinances (Sign Ordinance), and sign variances/special permits are processed through the Sign
Control Board. Since the applicant is requesting a PD Planned Development District, the sign
standards shall be reviewed and considered by the City Council after recommendation by the City
Plan Commission through this PD process. The proposed sign standards are listed and detailed
below:
1. A maximum number of six (6) pole/pylon shall be allowed on the site – The site currently
exceeds the maximum number of allowable freestanding pole/pylon signs allowed by the
Sign Ordinance, which limits the number of pole/pylon signs on a site to a maximum of
three (3) signs. However, the site currently contains five (5) freestanding pole/pylon
signs; the additional signs have been approved through sign variances in the past. The
proposed movie theater intends to install a sixth pylon sign on the east side of the
property to provide signage along Central Expressway.
2. A digital display board shall be allowed on a pylon sign limited to use by a movie theater
– The proposed pylon sign will contain a digital display board located below the logo
sign. The sign will be approximately 131 square feet as shown on Exhibit “C”. The
display board would display images related to the movies playing at the theater and
associated show times. The Sign Code only allows digital display boards upon approval
of a special permit by the Sign Control Board; however, the City is looking into standards
that would allow digital signage in the future. Development standards for the digital
display board are listed in the proposed standards section at the end of the staff report.
3. A pylon sign not to exceed fifty (50) feet in height shall be allowed limited to use by a
movie theater – The proposed pylon sign will be fifty (50) feet tall. The Sign Ordinance
does not allow single use pole/pylon signs to exceed twenty (20) feet in height. The
5
applicant is requesting the increased height since the sign will be located along Central
Expressway and may not be visible if limited to twenty (20) feet due to the location of
trees along the frontage road and because the main travel lanes are above grade. Existing
signs on the property exceed the 20-foot height limitation and the multi-tenant
Richardson Heights sign next to Party City is approximately 55 - 60 feet in height.
4. A pylon sign limited to use by a movie theater shall be allowed a maximum area of
signage (including digital display) of 296 square feet –The proposed pylon sign area will
be 296 square feet. The Sign Code limits a single use pole/pylon sign to a maximum of
sixty (60) square feet in area. The proposed logo sign will be 165 square feet, but with
the addition of the 131-square foot digital display board, the maximum sign area will be
296 square feet.
5. A maximum 487 square feet of building signage shall be allowed for a movie theater use
– The proposed building signage exceeds the maximum 200 square feet of signage
allowed for the east elevation of the proposed movie theater. The proposed signage area
for the east elevation will total 451 square feet. This area includes the main “Alamo
Drafthouse Cinema” sign, the two movie reel sconces, and the individual channel letter
signs as depicted on Exhibit “C”.
Motion:
request. The Commission may recommend approval of the request, add or amend
conditions, or recommend denial of the request.
Should the CPC accept the applicant’s request as presented, the motion should
include the following:
1. The subject site shall be zoned PD Planned Development for the C-M
Commercial District and shall be developed in accordance with the zoning
regulations of the C-M Commercial District, Exhibit “B”, and Exhibit “C”
except as otherwise provided herein.
i. Building B as depicted on Exhibit “B” shall be allowed a minimum 20foot rear setback from the property line.
ii. A minimum of 988 parking spaces shall be provided.
iii. The maximum height of Building B in conjunction with a movie theater
shall be thirty-five (35) feet to the top of roof and the tallest façade
element shall be forty-eight (48) feet.
2. The following sign standards pertain only to a freestanding pylon sign for a
movie theater:
i. Maximum height shall not to exceed fifty (50) feet
ii. The pylon sign shall be located no closer than sixty (60) feet of any other
sign.
6
iii. The maximum area shall not exceed 296 square feet to include the digital
display. The digital display shall not exceed 50% of the total sign area
allowed and images shall be allowed to change at a frequency of no less
than one (1) change per six (6) seconds.
iv. Moving, flashing, animated, intermittently lighted, changing color,
beacons, revolving, scrolling, dissolving, or similarly constructed signs are
prohibited.
v. Intensity of display brightness will automatically adjust to natural light
conditions. Brightness cannot interfere with the vision of traffic on an
adjacent road.
vi. A programmable sign shall be equipped with a properly functioning
default mechanism that will cause the sign to revert immediately to a
single, fixed, non-transitory image or to a black screen if the sign
malfunctions.
vii. The illumination intensity of the display of the digital display shall not
exceed one (1) foot candle measured at the property line.
viii. The digital display shall not be used to display commercial messages
relating to products/services that are not offered on the premises.
3. The maximum area of all attached signage for a movie theater shall not exceed
487 square feet, not to exceed 451 square feet on the east elevation. The
building signage shall be placed in general conformance with Exhibit “C”.
Council Hearing Date: The earliest possible City Council hearing date is May 14, 2012
7
ZF 12-06 - Richardson Heights Shopping Center
Applicant’s Statement
Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas is currently working with HI-REIT, the owner of the
Richardson Heights shopping center, on a long-term lease for a 30,000 square foot
building. The landlord and tenant’s goal is to use Alamo Drafthouse as an
entertainment anchor and catalyst to revitalize this center.
The reason for the PD request is two-fold. First, in order to build a theater to the
brands requirements the outside dimensions of the building must change. This
change deals mostly with height in order to accommodate Alamo’s stadium seating,
large screens and state of the art audio and projection systems.
The second reason for the PD focuses on visibility for both Alamo and the center.
The Richardson Heights center caters to a very small portion of Richardson’s
population. Combine this with the large trees in front of the center and it’s easy to
see why many potential customers drive past this center everyday without a second
look. In order for Alamo to be successful in this center, which currently does not
cater to the majority of our customer base, visibility is paramount. An average
Alamo caters to over 285,000 customers a year. The average drive time of an Alamo
customer is 16-minutes. These generators combined with the great partnership of
the City of Richardson can help revitalize this center into an entertainment
destination.
Building Height: The reason for the proposed building height is to build a theater
to the requirements of our brand. Without the extra height Alamo cannot put a
theater into this space. The stadium seating and height of our screens requires
significant interior space. The other aspect of the height is the architectural feature
that will make this building look like a movie theater. Our goal is to make it clear to
customers that we are a movie theater while using paint colors and stone accents to
blend our space in with the rest of the center.
Parking Standards: Theaters require more parking then most retail and therefore
we need a revised parking standards for this increased requirement. This theater
will only have 744 seats and most customers arrive in groups, driving only one car.
Friday and Saturday nights after 7:00pm is the busiest time for our theater and the
only time our theaters are 100% occupied. This works well with the center since
most of the retail will be closing around the time we are busy. In order to assure
superior service Alamo staggers movies. Very rarely will every auditorium be
showing movies at the same time.
Reduced setback adjacent to residential: We will not be changing the building
footprint. Therefore our setback to residential will remain the same.
Building Signage: As stated above visibility is imperative to our success and the
overall goal of this center’s transformation. Having a sign on our building that is inline with our brand’s new standard and explains to new customers what Alamo does
is something we need to draw new customers.
Pylon Sign Addition: In order to take advantage of the 300,000 plus cars that drive
by this site everyday presence on the frontage is important. It will help to pull more
customers to Alamo and in-turn bring more customers to the center. This increase
in traffic will assist the landlord in his goals to lease up the center and make it a
retail and entertainment hub for Richardson and DFW.
Pylon Sign Height: With the trees and other signs on the center’s East property
line a higher pylon sign is needed in order for Alamo’s logo to be seen.
Pylon Sign Size: The height increase of this pylon size coupled with the speed of
cars on Central Expressway makes a larger sign important. This again comes back
to visibility being important and how the increase in traffic helps both Alamo and
the center.
Pylon Sign Digital Display: We want our signage on Central Expressway to be eye
catching and show individuals not familiar with our concept that we are a movie
theater. This sign will be a 4 color digital display that will show still images and
graphics. These images will change every 5 to 10 seconds but will not have
animation or flashing lights. For the most part this sign will show digital movie
placards with a movies title and the graphic the studios have chosen for their new
film. We will also use this sign to announce Alamo’s world famous special events.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
File No./Name:
Property Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Current Zoning:
Request:
ZF 12-06 / Movie Theater
Allen Hartman / Hartman Richardson Heights Properties, LLC
Tyler Isbell / SRS Real Estate Partners
(See map on reverse side)
C-M Commercial
A request by Tyler Isbell, representing Hartman Richardson Heights
Properties, LLC, for a change in zoning from C-M Commercial with
special conditions to PD Planned Development to accommodate the
construction of a movie theater on property located at 100 S. Central
Expressway.
7:00 p.m.
Richardson, Texas
This notice has been sent to all owners of real property within 200 feet of the request; as such ownership appears on
the last approved city tax roll.
Process for Public Input: A maximum of 15 minutes will be allocated to the applicant and to those in favor of the
request for purposes of addressing the City Plan Commission. A maximum of 15 minutes will also be allocated to
those in opposition to the request. Time required to respond to questions by the City Plan Commission is excluded
from each 15 minute period.
Persons who are unable to attend, but would like their views to be made a part of the public record, may send signed,
written comments, referencing the file number above, prior to the date of the hearing to: Dept. of Development
Services, PO Box 830309, Richardson, TX 75083.
The City Plan Commission may recommend approval of the request as presented, recommend approval with
additional conditions or recommend denial. Final approval of this application requires action by the City Council.
Agenda: The City Plan Commission agenda for this meeting will be posted on the City of Richardson website the
Saturday
before
the
public
hearing.
For
a
copy
of
the
agenda,
please
go
to:
http://www.cor.net/DevelopmentServices.aspx?id=13682.
For additional information, please contact the Dept. of Development Services at 972-744-4240 and reference Zoning
File number ZF 12-06.
BUDDHIST COMPASSION
RELIEF TZU CHI FOUNDATION
534 W BELT LINE RD
RICHARDSON, TX 750806311
WHISENANT DAVID ET AL
3838 OAK LAWN AVE STE 1416
DALLAS, TX 752194515
FTB OF TEXAS LLC
PO BOX 1350
MADISONVILLE, LA 704471350
BM CAPITAL INVESTMENT
GROUP LLC
3705 HACKBERRY LN
HARTMAN RICHARDSON HEIGHTS
2909 HILLCROFT ST STE 420
HOUSTON, TX 770575815
MARTIN BETTY
1601 FAIR OAKS DR
KAUR PARMJEET
103 S LINDALE LN
SIMMONS DIANE ELIZABETH
105 S LINDALE LN
MCKINNEY SUE LORENE
601 W BELT LINE RD
ROSA PATRICIA G
6603 TYREE ST
MARSHALL RAQUEL
600 DEVONSHIRE DR
MAIN MARIAN L &
SHIRLEY J STROUD
201 S LINDALE LN
FREITES ALMIRA G
203 S LINDALE LN
CAFFEY MARGARET
714 SCOTTSDALE DR
GAPONENKO ALEKSANDR A &
TATYANA V
205 S LINDALE LN
WASHINGTON BRUCE E &
ROBERTS KAREN C
7012 MIDCREST DR
SCURRY THOMAS & LAUREN
209 S LINDALE LN
ORAM JESSICA RENEE & DAVID
600 SHERWOOD DR
MADRID NORMA
301 S LINDALE LN
SEYMOUR CONRAD L
603 SHERWOOD DR
POWERS RAMONA
303 S LINDALE LN
BUDJENSKA H C JR EST OF
305 S LINDALE LN
LYLES GREG T & KATY
300 S LINDALE LN
RAY SHANNON
307 S LINDALE LN
CRANE IVAN LEE
302 S LINDALE LN
WHITTINGTON BEVERLY
304 S LINDALE LN
ASH BERNICE S
309 S LINDALE LN
VESTAL IDA BELLE
306 S LINDALE LN
RUSSELL CARMEN M
303 NOTTINGHAM DR
DUHON TERRI B
2202 BLACKBERRY DR
BESIO PAUL F
PO BOX 1082
CANON CITY, CO 812151082
MURPHREE INVEST II LTD
2409 DUBLIN RD
PLANO, TX 750943803
LIU JU CHIEN
300 NOTTINGHAM DR
GOLDENWEST DIAMOND CORP
15732 TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY # A
TUSTIN, CA 927804924
SIGNATURE LEASING LLC
PO BOX 481
CATOOSA, OK 740150481
BURGER STREET INC
10903 ALDEER CIR
STATE BANK OF TEXAS
PO BOX 763009
TYLER ISBELL
SRS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS
8343DOUGLAS AVENUE, STE. 200
DALLAS, TX 75225
ALLEN HARTMAN
HARTMAN RICHARDSON HEIGHTS
2909 HILLCROFT ST STE 420
HOUSTON, TX 770575815
ZF 12-06
Notification List

City of Richardson City Plan Commission Agenda Packet May 1, 2012

Transcription

Similar documents

DISCIPLESHIP TRAINING SCHOOL (DTS)

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONDUCT A ZONING ADMINISTOR

Application Form for Degree in Absentia

college official`s report curry college

Nursing Education Initiative Application Checklist PLEASE

Sole Proprietorship Registration Form A

PLAN COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT

Claytoven Richardson Biography

application for parts and service account

Regular Meeting - City of Dripping Springs