Loading...
BM 1999-12-16 PZMinutes of December 16,1999 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Coppell met in pre -session at 6 p.m., and in regular session at 6:30 p.m., on Thursday, December 16, 1999, in the Coppell Town Center, 255 Parkway Boulevard, Coppell, Texas 75019. The following members were present: Chairman Rick McCaffrey Vice Chairman Texx Stewart Commissioner Anna Kittrell Commissioner Jon Nesbit Commissioner Greg McGahey Commissioner Drew Halsey Commissioner Sam Clark Also present were Assistant City Engineer Mike Martin, City Attorney Bob Hager, Fire Marshal Travis Crump, Civil Engineer Kent Collins, Planning Director Gary Sieb, City Planner Isabelle Moro and Sr. Administrative Secretary Barbara Jahoda. PRE -SESSION (Open to the Public) 1. Briefing on the Agenda. Staff briefed the Commission on the cases. REGULAR SESSION (Open to the Public) 2. Call to Order. Chairman McCaffrey called the meeting to order. 3. Approval of Minutes dated November 18, 1999. Commissioner Nesbit made a motion to approve the minutes of November 18, 1999, as written. Commissioner Kittrell seconded; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD -178% Town Center West, Detail Site Plan Review of a Retail Center, zoning change request to amend the planned development and allow the construction of a 13,393 square foot retail facility on approximately 1.8 acres of property located at the southwest corner of N. Denton Tap Road and Town Center West Boulevard, at the request of Dowdey, Anderson and Associates, Inc. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD -178R2, Town Center West Detail Site Plan of the Children's Courtyard, daycare and child development centers, zoning change request to amend the planned development and allow the construction of a 10,262 square foot daycare and a 10,545 square foot child development center on approximately 2.7 acres of property located along the south side of Town Center West Boulevard, approximately 320' west of N. Denton Tap Road, at the request of Dowdey, Anderson and Associates, Inc. After having received a letter dated December 16th from the applicant's attorney, Arthur J. Anderson, Planning Director Gary Sieb asked that Item 4, PD -178R, Town Center West, Detail Site Plan of a Retail Center, and Item 51 PD -17882, Town Center West, Detail Site Plan of the Children's Courtyard, be continued to the Commission's January 20, 2000, meeting. Commissioner Halsey made a motion to continue Case Nos. PD -178R and PD -178R2 to the Commission's meeting of January 20th. Commissioner Clark seconded the motion, motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor of continuance on January 20th. None opposed. 6. Consider approval of the Town Center West, Lots 1 and 2, Block A. Preliminary Plat, to allow the development of a retail center, daycare facility and child developm ent center on approximately 4.5 acres of property located at the southwest corner N. Denton Tap Road and Town Center West Boulevard, at the request of Dowdey, Anderson and Associates, Inc. Because Cases Nos. PD -178R and PD -17882 were continued to the next Commission meeting and because action on Plats must be taken within 30 days or they are automatically approved, Planning Director Gary Sieb asked that this Preliminary Plat be denied. Commissioner Nesbit made a motion to deny the Town Center West, Lots 1 and 2, Block A, Preliminary Plat. Commissioner McGahey seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor of denial. None opposed. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD -180, Tetco/Mobil Gas Station with Convenience Store, zoning change request from HC (Highway Commercial) to PD -HC (Planned Development, Highway Commercial), to allow the development of a gas station, convenience store and car wash on approximately 1.518 acres of property located at the southwest corner of S.H. 121 Bypass and N. MacArthur Boulevard, at the request of Dowdey, Anderson and Associates, Inc. Planning Director Gary Sieb introduced the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of the proposal, reminding the Commission that the applicant first asked for approval of this P P p project on September 16thbut because staff recommended denial at that time, the applicant withdrew his request and has worked with staff in an attempt to address the issues than re ed raised in the original submittal. After describing how the design of this project has changed for the better since the original proposal, Mr. Sieb stated that this is still a gas station, 2 convenience store and car wash in a primary image zone of Coppell, and this use does not conform with the Comprehensive Master Plan; hence, staff still recommends denial. Dan Anderson, Centex Development Company, 3100 McKinnon Avenue, Dallas, TX, was present to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions, describing Centex's master plan development of the Vista Ridge area, their relationship with TETCO, and then briefly addressed some of the comments brought up by Mr. Sieb. He stated that TETCO is the largest owner of Mobil gas stations in the state of Texas, owning over 350 businesses, adding that Centex will own and lease this building to TETCO, on a long-term basis, which shows their commitment to the area. With regard to the remaining acreage owned by Centex on this tract, Mr. Anderson distributed to the Commission the master plan as proposed by Centex (attached as Exhibit A), which potentially would house this gasoline/service station at the corner of MacArthur and S.H. 121, a grocery -anchored retail center and office/tech-type uses. Mr. Anderson believes that this proposed project is of a higher and better use for Highway Commercial zoned property than what is permitted by right; i.e., manufacturing and industrial plants, equipment sales, motels, movie theaters and hardware stores, etc. Mr. Anderson stated that Coppell's Comprehensive Master Plan is more or less a conceptual document and he could not find where it identified that this proposed use was not permitted or was discouraged. Their tract is identified as "mixed use", not regional retail as mentioned in the Staff Report. He then referred to a number of other gas station/convenience store/ car wash facilities in Coppell which fall under the Comprehensive Plan as regional retail, neighborhood retail and mixed-use developments. Referring to the primary image zone comment, Mr. Anderson stated that the proposed development does lend great credibility to the Vista Ridge area and the City of Coppell should be proud to have this keystone development right at the entrance of the City. Helen -Eve Liebman with Dowdey, Anderson & Associates, Inc., 5225 Village Creek Drive, Suite 200, Plano, TX 75093, then spoke relative to the comments made in the Staff Report. She feels that this proposal is now aesthetically pleasing, is in -scale, is of the desired materials, exceeds the landscaping requirement by over 5,000 square feet, has no stucco on the building, all of the roof lines have been changed, they are no longer asking to have a side -yard reduction, and added that all concerns raised by the Leisure Services and Engineering Departments have been met. As a resident of Coppell, she feels this is a very nice looking/attractive use, which is needed within our community. Being out on the freeway, Ms. Liebman feels this location is most appropriate for this type of use. Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward. There were none. Chairman McCaffrey closed the Public Hearing. Discussion followed relative to the timeframe of the present Comprehensive Plan and the existing gas stations in the City. Mr. Sieb stated that in the ten years that he has been with the City, no new gas stations have been built and said that the Comprehensive Plan is less than three years old. He added that in today's plan, this use would not be appropriate for 3 1 this location and probably many of the existing locations. Commissioner McGahey asked how the Comprehensive Plan addresses service stations, in particular. Mr. Sieb replied that it doesn't say that gas stations are not allowed, but does deal with image zones -- entrances into the City -- and the kind of uses which should be encouraged on those sites; i.e., office, savings and loan, bank buildings, restaurants, etc. He then reviewed areas where gas stations would be acceptable. Mr. Sieb stressed that the first use will set the tone of how the rest of the tract will develop. He added that this is a great gas station, but it is in the wrong location. The fact that the other three corners at MacArthur Boulevard and S.H. 121 do not belong to Coppell was raised and Mr. Sieb commented that he's been in contact with the Lewisville Planning Director as to possible uses and stated that it is his responsibility to see that the highest and best use is developed in Coppell. A question was raised as to whether or not diesel fuel would be sold at this location. The answer was "no". Credit was given to the design of this service station, including its landscaping design. Richard Peacock, Peacock and Company, 7898 Broadway, Suite 100, San Antonio, TX, 78209, representing TETCO in their acquisitions, stated that TETCO was also the first facility to be built at the corner of Trophy Club Drive and S.H. 114 in the City of Trophy Club and since then, a bank has been built next door, a 20,000 square foot retail facility has been built on the other side of the gas station, a Presbyterian Church was built approximately 1,000 feet away, and they are at the entrance of Trophy Club, TX, which wasn't an easy feat to accomplish. He stated that TETCO thrives in this environment, is a first-class facility and maintains their stations in a first-class manner and employs first-class personnel. He said that as Mr. Sieb stated earlier, whatever goes here first, sets the example of what follows and in this case, works to TETCO's benefit. He pointed out that a lot of other uses could go on this property that would be much less advantageous on this corner. Gary Sieb reminded the Commission what happens when the tone is set for a piece of property and again stated that he is very concerned about the land use. Commissioner Halsey made a motion to deny Case No. PD -180, TETCO/Mobil Gas Station with Convenience Store/Car Wash. Commissioner Kittrell seconded the motion; motion carried (4-3) with Commissioners McGahey, Kittrell, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor of denial. Commissioners Nesbit, McCaffrey and Clark opposed. 8. Consider approval of the Vista Ridge, Lot 4, Block G, Preliminary Plat (Tetco/Mobil), to allow the development of a gas station, convenience store and car wash on approximately 1.518 acres of property located at the southwest corner of S.H. 121 Bypass and N. MacArthur Boulevard, at the request of Dowdey, Anderson and Associates, Inc. Planning Director Gary Sieb stated that since the zoning request was denied, the Preliminary Plat must also be denied. Commissioner McGahey made a motion to deny the Vista Ridge, Lot 4, Block G, Preliminary Plat. Commissioner Halsey seconded the motion; motion carried (4-3) with Commissioners McGahey, Kittrell, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor of denial. Commissioners Nesbit, McCaffrey and Clark opposed. 4 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD -181, Bethel Road Estates, zoning change request from C (Commercial) to PD -SF -12 (Planned Development, Single Family -12), to allow the development of 2 residential lots on 3.2 acres of property located along the north side of W. Bethel Road, approximately 700' east of Hearthstone Lane, at the request of Mary Myers and Fred Joyce. Planning Director Gary Sieb introduced the item to the Commission, showing an exhibit of the proposal, stating that staff recommends approval of this zoning change, subject to the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Terry Holmos, 510 Country Lane, Coppell, TX, was present to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions, addressing staff comments. Regarding comment #1 relative to ane drive for both properties, Mr. Holmes requested individual driveways be allowed, stating that a four -car garage is planned for the property to the west and a six -car garage is planned for the property to the east, adding that one driveway would cause a burden to the homeowners in terms of resaleability. He stated that he is in agreement with the other comments. Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward. Those spearing were: Stuart Thomas, 640 DeForest Road, Coppell, TX — Stated that he's a resident of Coppell and will be purchasing one of these two lots. Basically he asked for individual driveways, citing maneuverability for his long Cigarette boat. He is also worded about the potential resale of his home if they have to share a common drive. Chairman McCaffrey closed the Public Hearing. Discussion followed relative to a single driveway. Planning Director Sieb stated that the idea was to keep as efficient a flow onto Bethel Road as possible and every time you have a curb cut, it cuts down on the efficiency, adding that the Engineering Department would be amenable to two driveways as long as they were a minimum of 90' apart and can meet the City's vertical distance criteria. Maneuverability of the Cigarette boat was then discussed and assurance was given that the boat will not be backed out of the property onto Bethel. Commissioner Stewart made a motion to approve Case No. PD -181, Bethel Road Estates, subject to foe following conditions: 1) A circulation plan that allows all vehicular maneuvering on the lots and not on Bethel Road (read: no backing into Bethel Road). YJ 3) 4) Complete tree survey acceptable to Leisure Services. Park development fees of $1,285 per dwelling unit are required. No development is allowed in the 100 -year floodplain. 5 5) Minimum finished floor will be one foot above the ultimate flood elevation. 6) The final grades for the driveways and screening fence will need to be coordinated with the Engineering department to minimize future conflict with Bethel Road. 7) Due to the typical erosion of creeks, creek embankment stabilization may be necessary. Commissio 'er McGahey seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, Mc ahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. 10. Consider approval of the Bethel Road Estates, Lots 1 and 2. Block 1, Minor Platto allow the development of 2 residential lots on 3.2 acres of property located along the north side of W. Bethel Road, approximately 700' east of Hearthstone Lane, at the request of Landes and Associates, Inc. Planning Director Gary Sieb introduced the item to the Commission, stating that staff recommends approval of this request, subject to the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. The applicant was not asked to appear before the Commission. No discussin followed. Comms � approve sio er Nesbit made a motion to a rove the Bethel Road Estates, Lots 1 &2, Block 1 Minor Pl t, subject to the following conditions: 1) Lot 1 dimensions between zoning exhibit and platting exhibit track. 2) Complete tree survey acceptable to Leisure Services Department. 3) Park Development fees of $1,285 per dwelling unit are required. 4) No development in 100 year flood plain. 5) Minimum finished floor elevation stated. 6) Due to the typical erosion of creeks, creek embankment stabilization may be necessary. Commissioner Kittrell seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. 11. PUBLIC ARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD -182, The Townhouses of 6 Coppell, zon g change request from MF -2 (Multi -Family -2) to PD-TH-2 (Townhouse - 2), to allow the development of 92 townhouse units on approximately 10 acres of property located along the east side of S. MacArthur Boulevard, approximately, 1,700' south of E. S ndy Lake Road, at the request of C.N. Lemp Development, Inc. Planning Director Gary Sieb introduced the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of the proposal, stating that originally, staff recommended that this case be taken under advisement itntil certain issues had been resolved. After receiving the Stam Report, he said the applicant immediately went to work to resolve all outstanding issues and staff can now recommend approval of this zoning change. After addressing Mr. Lemp's memorandum dated Dece ber 15th regarding these issues, Mr. Sieb then stated that staff recommends approval of 's request, subject to the six conditions outlined in the Staff Report. I Mike Lawler, Cornerstone Architects, 10719 Plano Road, Suite 100, Dallas, TX, 75238, was present to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions, stating that he just I eard from the Engineering Department indicating that rolled curbs can be used as long ase sidewalks are moved back additional footage, which would help with the narrow greei i areas between the pavements and the driveways coming into the project. He showed a p tograph of a like facility in Dallas with rolled curbs. Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward. were none. Chairman McCaffrey closed the Public Hearing. Some discussion followed with regard to the green space between the sidewalk and the street; depressing the driveways to street levels; having mountable curbs with setback sidewalks, additional traffic on MacArthur Boulevard; street lighting, etc. Mike Daniel, Nathan D. Maier Engineers, 8080 Park Lane, Dallas, TX, addressed some concerns. Mike Martin, Assistant City Engineer, addressed issues regarding the use of mountable curbs and the possibility of vehicles parking on the sidewalks, deceleration lanes, parking along the streets, visitor parking, location of fire hydrants, etc. Mr. Daniel agreed that street parking would not t e a good idea and volunteered to post "no parking" signs. Craig Lemp, owner, 5616 Preston Oaks, Suite 908, Dallas, TX, 75244, then addressed the street parking issue. He stated that in another one of his complexes, parking is not allowed on the streets and no one mounts the curbs and parks on the sidewalks. City Attorney Hager stated that an ordinance'11 have to be brought before Council regarding no parking on the streets to make it enf rceable. Chairman l Coppell, su 1) 2) Hrey made a motion to approve Case No. PD -182, The Townhouses of to the following conditions: Sidewalk setback shall be one (1) foot off the property line. Park development fees of $1,285 per dwelling unit are required. 7 12. 3) 4) Commissi Nesbit, M opposed. All Fire Department concerns will meet City requirements. Tree reparation will be as submitted and approved by the Leisure Services Department. Clark seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners -y, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None Consider proval of The Townhouses of Coppell, Preliminary Plat, to allow the developme t of 92 townhouse units on approximately 10 acres of property located along the ast side of S. MacArthur Boulevard, approximately, 1,700' south of E. Sandy Lak Road, at the request of C.N. Lemp Development, Inc. Planning Director Gary Sieb introduced the item to the Commission, stating that staff recommends approval of this request, subject to the conditions on PD -182 and that the fire lane easements be added to the Plat. No discussi6n followed. Commissio er Kittrell made a motion to approve The Townhouses of Coppell, Preliminary Plat, subjec to the following conditions: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Commissi Nesbit, M opposed. A 10 -minute brea Sidewalk setback shall be one (1) foot off the property line. Park development fees of $1,285 per dwelling unit are required. All Fire Department concerns will meet City requirements. Tree reparation will be as submitted and approved by the Leisure Services Department. The fire lane easement must be added to the Plat. Show minimum finished floor elevations on the Plat. Nesbit seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners ey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None was observed. 13. PUBLIC kARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD -183, Coppell High School, zoning ch nge request from C and SF -12 (Commercial and Single -Family -12) to PD -C (Planned evelopment, Commercial), to allow a 6' high decorative metal screening fence wit landscaping along the northern edge of the new parking lot, as well as incorpora a the previously approved site plan allowing the construction of concession 8 stands, a press box, additional seating at the existing football stadium, as well as a multipurpose building, tennis court, tennis center, storage facility and additional parking on property to this planned development to be located at 185 W. Parkway Boulevard, 4t the request of Glenn Engineering, Inc. City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of the proposal, giving a history of the site and stating when the Site Plan was approved by the Commission. a number of conditions were attached, including a condition that the Board of Adjustment ad to grant a number of special exceptions as well as variances, which she enumerated. She added that on August 5, 1999, the Board granted six exceptions and one of the two v ' ances requested, stating that the variance that was denied was the waiver of the 6 -foot hi masonry screening requirement for a non-residential use adjacent to a single family resi ential district. Ms. Moro then stated that the applicant now wishes to incorporate previously approved Site Plan conditions, as well as the special exceptions and variance granted by the Board into the Planned Development. They also are requesting, at this time, to modify the 6 -foot high masonry screening requirement and allow a 6 -foot high decorative metal fence with extensive landscaping (trees and hedges) along the northern and western edge of the new parking lot. She stated that the applicant feels the living screen would not ofily maintain but enhance the present creek environment and would allow for a softer vis barrier than a solid masonry wall. The applicant also feels that a solid screening w, -dl would be prone to graffiti. Ms. Moro stated that of the 122 notices that were sent to the surrounding homeowners, only one negative reply was received by staff, which she then highlighted. Ms. Moro went on to state that staff recommends approval of this request, subject to the two conditions outlined in the Staff Report. A question as posed as to the spacing between the proposed Cedar Elm plantings. The answer was 40 feet apart. Ms. Moro then stated that the proposed linear footage of the decorative etal fence is approximately 1,100 feet. Robert Howman, Glenn Engineering, 100 Decker Court, Suite 250, Irving, TX, was present to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions, reviewing the history of tho high school property dating back to the early 1990's regarding variances asked of Council. He stated that they are looking for a soft visual barrier that complements and matches wh t is on the school property today. He then listed a number of schools around the City which have similar fencing that back up to residential areas. Mr. Howman stated that there is approximately 5 feet of area between the fence and the floodplain area in which to place landscaping. Mr. Howman showed an exhibit of the two closest homes, stating that the distance from the back of their homes to the center of the creek is approximately 150 feet or greator and the total distance from the wall to the back of the homes is approximately 350+ feet 'e length of a football field). He feels that this distance is an adequate buffer as far as noise s concerned. Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward. Those spealing against this proposal were: DeCordova, 319 Martel Lane, Coppell, TX — Is concerned with the amount and size of Cedar Elm screening outside the fence, particularly in the winter when the foliage falls. He believes that this same landscaping would be required even Witt. a solid masonry wall and feels that 1,200 cars cannot be properly screened by a dec rative metal fence with a few trees. The statement that other schools in the area have the decorative metal fence separating their property from residential homes is weak because elementary school kids do not drive their cars to school and don't disr apt neighboring homes with their vehicles during the day and night. He referred to ouncil's waiver of the solid masonry fence in the past stipulating the school kee the chain-link fence covered with ivy and a living screen. He then said that one of the reasons the Board of Adjustment recently voted against this variance was bec tuse the school has never been able keep anything growing along this fence. The residents abutting this present fence line warned everyone that the same thing would probably happen again, stating that the school doesn't live up to their promises. He stat . -Id that a 30" shrub on the inside of the fence will not dissipate the noise level, arg iing that football games are a very small portion of the extracurricular use of this site — that there are regular track meets, soccer games, practices, band practices, etc., inc uding what seems like a raceway in that area on the weekends. Art n Gaffner, 303 Martel Lane, Coppell, TX — Stated that his frustration is as mu h with the process as it is with the proposal, adding that four months ago after list ning to the presentation of the school's engineers before the Board of Ad ustment, he and some neighbors asked the Board to deny the request to waive the masonry fence requirement because of the lack of specificity regarding the type of fence being proposed, the quality and quantity of landscaping, lack of an drawings, renderings, plans or elevations at that meeting, inaccuracies and cor tradictions between the school district engineers and the City Engineer regarding dismices from property lines to the creek, etc. Mr. Gaffner stated that three days ago: the neighbors received a letter from the school stating what they intend to do and he feels frustration in the fact that even though the homeowners' objections wee spoken and ruled on by the Board of Adjustment, the school district is taking the approach "Tough, we'll go a different route; we'll get the property rezoned." Four months ago the neighbors asked that the school talk with them to see if a solution could be reached and nothing was heard since the 5th of August until a letter we s received three days ago. Regarding cost, he stated that no one wants to waste money, however, he feels that $165,000 can be found for the fence in the huge ex ansion of the school property. He feels that it takes less cost to maintain a brick w 1 than it would landscaping and suggested taking five rows off the top of the football stadium if need be. Finally, he asked that the Commission deny this rezoning request. -ick Campbell, 315 Martel Lane, Coppell, TX — Is very opposed to this rezoning nge request, feeling that this request is just a procedure to get around the nimous Board of Adjustment ruling. He feels that any variance would unfairly alize the Copperstone homeowners and feels that it is not a prudent economic ision. He stated that the zoning was put in place for a purpose — to protect the aeowners or future homeowners from the noise, lights, any inappropriate ingress, He feels that the Copperstone homeowners should have the same rights as the 10 Chaucer Estates homeowners with the development on Denton Tap, the new Denton Tap schools and The Springs, which will abut a church in the future. He stated that the wall behind the C.I.S.D. Administration Building is not a decorative metal fence sep ating them from the residential area, but is a 6 -foot brick wall. Feels this request is not prudent economics. Believes that a brick wall will last at least twice as long as a decorative metal fence and will require much less maintenance. He stated that it only takes a 5 percent decline in property values for the 48 homes in Cop erstone closest to the high school to create a 20 -year loss of about a half- mill'on dollars in tax revenue. Feels that preserving the existing tax base in Coppell is i portant. He supports the expansion of the high school with the brick wall, as is req red. He requested Commission deny this request. Mar c Gillman, 413 Martel Lane, Coppell, TX — Believes the economics of how this prof osal impacts the people who live in Copperstone neighborhood should be taken into consideration. Feels there is a safety issue for children who play in their backyards. Environmentally speaking, there may be species of birds, etc., in that flood plain area which may need protection. Wants homeowners protected from ligh s and people who may be able to watch the activities of children in their Ben Coe, 401 Martel Lane, Coppell, TX — Regarding the statement that a decorative metal fence with landscaping would be more environmentally friendly, he pointed out that all the foliage and trees between Parkway Boulevard and the fence would be destroyed. He doesn't believe this is being environmentally friendly. Reaffirmed the statement that where they put decorative metal fencing next to elementary schools, they also do not have a 12,000 -seat stadium behind them. Kevin Dunn, 307 Auburn Way, Coppell, TX — Works for a local real estate company and stated that there are latent defects of homes that back up to Parkway Boulevard, etc., which put a $20-30,000 deficit on the value of the homes. Altliough these homes are premium homes today, they may be looked upon as "un esirable" if people are able to look into these backyards. Adkins, 405 Martel Lane, Coppell, TX — Feels that safety of the children is a t concern. Has concerns about the amount of noise, light and access by sixteen- -olds. Feels that a 6 -foot brick wall would meet his requirements much better a porous decorative metal fence. A brick wall would prevent the light from ing through, would be a much more substantial barrier to noise and would ent kids from easily crossing over to Copperstone. The area already has dems with people parking on their streets for football games and this proposal 1d aggravate this problem considerably. Feels that the list of problems is long should be considered in its entirety. With no ore else coming forward, Chairman McCaffrey closed the public hearing. Those people wishing to speak in favor of the proposal stated that they did not hear an invitation come forward. 11 Chairman N�cCaffrey reopened the Public Hearing. Those speaking in favor were: Buddy Echols, Superintendent of Schools, 213 Whispering Hills, Coppell, TX — Stat d that he does not like the look of a brick fence around any school site. Feels that it causes schools to look like prisons, adding that they are difficult to maintain. Doesn't want to change the fence to create problems for the homeowners, but believes that a decorative metal fence can be done in such a way that it can address homeowner concerns. Feels that a 30" hedge will quickly grow taller. As far as cutting through of students, he feels that someone could scale an open fence as well as a brick wall. He stated that if he were to purchase one of the homes which overlooks this proposal, he would certainly prefer to see a natural type fence rather than a brick wall. As far as the noise issue, he stated that no 6 -foot decorative metal shru bed fence or brick wall will alleviate the noise coming from any activity at the foot all stadium. Believes that the distance between the fence and the closest home Which is approximately 350 feet would have a great deal to do with lessening of the nois level. Admitted that the greenscape between the current parking lot and the proposed location of the fence would disappear for a parking area, but the remainder to the middle of the creek would remain as much as possible. Understands that when compared with the scope of the high school addition, the amount of $165,000 is not a "make or break" amount, but stated it is certainly a significant amount of money and believes this amount does not have to be spent. Regarding the process of asking for this variance to be reconsidered, he stated that's what our country is buil on; that's what people do in this system and that's what he's doing in this syst m; i.e., if they don't agree with a decision that was made, they have an opp rtunity, by whatever the process is, to ask for a reconsideration. Deena Reeve, President of the Board of Trustees for C.I.S.D., 324 E. Bethel School E,o d, Coppell, TX — Stated that they heard the citizens concerns about light, foot tr is and noise at the Board of Adjustment. As a member of the Board of Trustees, she said that one of the primary things they are responsible for is the budget of the school district and the allocation of those funds. She feels that the $165,000 can be used for other things, rather than a brick wall. She then stated that she lives next to a park where they are bothered by lights, noise, etc., but feels that thiE is just part of living in this community. She acknowledged that 1,200 kids don't cor le to the park every day, but on weekends there is a lot of foot traffic through the par and that is part of being a part of a community and sharing your life with 30,)00 other people. C.I.S.D. wants a barrier that is acceptable to the neighbors, as we 1 as being aesthetically pleasing to the kids who attend the school. Mie Arthur, member of the C.I.S.D. Board of Trustees, 751 Lexington, Coppell, TN — Defended the decorative metal fence with landscaping issue. Stated that prior to i noving to Lexington, he lived for 10 years at the corner of Bethel School Road anc Plantation where he had this kind of fence, stating that his family was never bot iered by car lights all night long or traffic noises. His house was located only 20 or 0 feet off the road, not 350 or so feet. Because of his personal experience, he 12 feels that this proposal would not cause a problem to the homeowners at Copperstone. He questioned the privacy and safety issue of children in the backyards. He said that if this was a problem, he believes it is the homeowners' responsibilities to enclose the backyards with a privacy fence and not the school's responsibility to close off the site line that goes to their yards. He feels that a decorative metal fence is the right thing for the school to build and added that the $16 5,000 could be used in educational ways. Urged the Commission to consider the needs of the many vs. the desires of a few. Robert Key, Vice President of the C.I.S.D. Board of Trustees, 204 Steamboat Drive, Coppell, TX — Stated that the original figure for the wall was $400,000 and feels that $165,000 is a significant compromise. Feels that this compromise is right for the kids and the majority of the community. He reminded the Commission that 86 per ent of the citizens voted for this bond package. He then stated that a brick wall w never in this deal, in fact, there was never a wall, which he would prefer. He unz d the Commission to vote favorably for this zoning change. Mie Elmore, 4000 McEwen Road, Dallas, TX, 75244 — Wanted to clarify that at the Board of Adjustment, the district asked that no fence be built at all and was told to build a brick wall. Feels that this proposal is a great compromise between the homeowners and the district. He stated that the Nellie R. Stevens hedge would actiWly be 6 -feet high instead of the 30" mentioned earlier. Urged approval of this Debbie Gillman, 413 Martel Lane, Coppell, TX — Feels that those who spoke in Fav x of this request chose not to speak first because they wanted this discussion to ,nd on a positive note. She stated that she didn't buy a house in Coppell to lose money. If she had known that behind the creek there would be a parking lot where she: could see cars, she probably would have erected a brick fence. She stated they C 't touch the creek because of it being a Federal wetlands area. Has concerns about paving a parking lot to make more room for cars; questions what it will do to the pond and creek that they can't do anything to? She added that there is already a problem behind them on Graham because the creek backs up behind their lots and they have standing water and if that water has no place to go, it will continue to flood back there. She feels this is a legitimate problem, regardless of the fence *ss e. She doesn't want to look on to a parking lot and is sure that her house would ha a been worth less if it were there when she bought it. Wants a safe place for her Joanne Wellsly, 308 Martel Court, Coppell, TX — Although her house does not back up to the creek, she feels that any house that is affected by this project, affects the whole neighborhood. She said that buying a house by a park is one thing if the park is there when the house was bought but when you buy a house when parking lots, etc., aren't in the plans, that's something else. She knows the neighborhood to the northeast of the high school has a brick wall around it and she doesn't believe there have been concerns about graffiti on that brick wall. She said that the high school is 13 an a.1 brick building and doesn't believe there are major concerns with graffiti there. As I hr as Lakewood Elementary School, she stated that that decorative metal and brick. fence looks out onto a grass playground. She feels that this addition will affect the alue of their homes. She doesn't understand the term "great compromise" between the school and the homeowners when the homeowners don't feel it's a compromise. Bry in DeCordova, 319 Martel Lane, Coppell, TX — Rebutted by saying that by deed rest 'ction, Copperstone residents can only erect decorative metal fences; they don't hav the right to erect privacy fences. Referring to Dr. Arthur when he told about livi g on Bethel School Road, the selling price of the house took into account the tr is flow. He said that his house, which is not one of the largest houses in the dev lopment, was recently appraised for $438,000, which is pretty close to the ave age. This means a considerably larger loss to the school district, City and County tax base than the $165,000 for the fence, if property values are reduced by this school addition. He added that this $165,000 is all future money, not payable today. He feels strongly that this is a bad economic decision. He emphasized car lights penetrate shrubs, noise penetrates shrubs, and ground noise does pass along theound but not through a solid brick wall. He is asking that the school district be mate to abide by the zoning regulations. Chairman McCaf Tey closed the Public Hearing. Extended discussion followed with regard to the need to landscape a brick wall along the outside. Ms. Moro stated that landscaping is typically planted inside the wall and is not required or, the outside, adding that there is a 10 -foot buffer between the edge of pavement and the wa 1 where trees will be spaced every 18-20 feet. The tree issue was discussed as to using exist ng trees being replanted in this landscape buffer area. Ms. Moro reminded the Commissi n that they are considering rezoning the area, incorporating all the special exceptions and variance that were granted by the Board of Adjustment and revisiting the screening wall requirement. Discussion then centered on the amount of landscaping along the wall/fence, the fact that a solid screening wall is required by zoning, the large size of the high school structure next to a residential neighborhood, the tremendous traffic that is created by being a high school vs. elementary school, the fact that functions occurring at a high schoo 1 are multiple in scope on possibly a nightly schedule, the situation of the parking issue ism ch greater on the north side of the school vs. the southern side, and the fact that over the long-term, maintenance of a decorative metal fence and landscaping will cost C.I.S.D. a lot more money than $165,000, etc. The possibility of much more landscaping was discussed to soften the appearance of the fenced area. When someone wanted to speak again, City Attorney Hager reminded the Commission that the Hearing is closed and according to State law, if the Commissioners wanted to ask a resident a specific question, he/she could answer, but have no other comment. Ms. Moro stressed that with a Planned Development, some. codes and zoning regulations can be modified and reminded the Commissi n that all plant material must be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and it is the responsibility of the property owner to replace any material that dies. Commissi ner Stewart expressed the opinion that the trees and shrub line will do more to help with a aesthetics of the area and believes that it will be as effective a sound barrier as 14 14. a solid maq the lack of a decision i held under come Demi willing to i and Buddy solution to tennis cour may be wit my wall. Commissioners Stewart and McGahey also expressed concern with [ow of information between the school district and the Copperstone residents. McGahey suggested that the two groups meet to find mutual agreement before made by the Commission. Ms. Moro said that the Public Hearing could be advisement. Commissioner Halsey asked for a member from each group to the Commission to answer a question as to whether or not they would be irk out a compromise on the fence/landscaping issue. Both Patrick Campbell .chols stated that "yes", they would be willing to meet to find a reasonable his issue. Mr. Campbell stated that the noise/lighting of the parking lot and , which will be open nightly till midnight is a big issue and most homeowners r1R to discuss a substantial landscape barrier. Commissioner Halsey made a motion to continue Case No. PD -183, Coppelll High School, zoning change request from C and SF -12 to PD -C, to the Commission's January 20th meeting. Commissioner McGahey seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None, opposed. PUBLIC I EARING: Consider approval of Case No. S -1077R2, Sonic Restaurant, zoning chf nge from C and C-S.U.P. (Commercial and Commercial, Special Use Permit) to -S.U.P. (Commercial, Special Use Permit), to incorporate 882 square feet of land to n existing .78 -acre site and allow a reduction in new parking spaces from 13 to 12 an a modification to both the size and sign face of the monument sign located at 201 N. enton Tap Road, at the request of Wainscott and Associates. City Plannc r Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of the proposal, giving a history of this site, stating that four months ago City Council approved a Site Plan endment incorporating additional property and the addition of 13 additional parking spa es along the northern property line, nine of which to have menu boards with the remainder being used for employee parking, adding that one of the conditions to this amendment was that a landscaping variance be sought from the Board of Adjustment. On September °d, the Board granted a request to reduce the perimeter landscaping from 6,932 square feet to 4,902 square feet and reduce the required non -vehicular landscaping from 4,340 square feet to 1,819 square feet. She stated that the applicant now wants to add another 88 square feet to this site, explaining the reasoning for this request. Ms. Moro then discussed the new monument sign that's being proposed which includes a new corporate logo, reminding the Commission that a smaller -sized sign was previously approved. Ms. Moro then stated that of the 23 notices sent out to surrounding property owners, o y one reply in support of this Special Use Permit was received by the Planning Departmen . She went on to say that staff recommends approval of this request, subject to the three c nditions outlined in the Staff Report. Mark Waii Lscott, Wainscott and Associates, 4815 Keller Springs, Addison, TX, was present to represer t this item before the Commission and answer any questions, stating that the brick and e cast stone to be used will match that on the existing Sonic building. He stated that since heir last submittal, Sonic has changed its logo and for the sake of name/sign recognitio , would like to have this new logo on their monument sign. Because this new 15 proposal is i wanting the c the square footage allowed by ordinance, he questioned the reasoning for to be smaller than what is proposed. Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward. were none. Chairman McCaffrey closed the Public Hearing. Some discussion followed regarding the monument sign and employee parking spaces. Commissioner McGahey made a motion to approve Case No. S -1077R2, Sonic Restaurant, zoning change from C and C-S.U.P. to C-S.U.P., subject to staff comments. Mark Wair scoff again questioned the reasoning for the reduced square footage of the monument ign, since the ordinance is being met. City Attorney Hager stated that when zoning is c anged, variances to ordinance requirements can be made. Planning Director Gary Sieb i iter ected that the applicant was well aware that once a zoning case is reopened for any reas Dn. a number of changes can occur. Commissioner McGahey again made a motion to approve Case No. S -1077R2, Sonic Restaurant, zoning change from C and C-S.U.P. to C-S.U.P., subject to the following conditions: 1) Approval of the color board, as submitted, showing all exterior building materials which match the existing structure. 2) Modify the amended landscape plan to reflect a total of 2,193 square feet of required interior landscaping. 3) The proposed monument sign be reduced to 24 square feet, allowing the new Sonic logo. Commissioner Clark seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, M Gahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. 15. PUBLIC EARING: Consider approval of Sonic Addition, Replat of Lot 1R, Block A and Minor Plat, to incorporated approximately 882 square feet of land to an existing .7 i-acreand allow a reduction in total parking spaces from 23 to 22 and a modifica ' n to both the size and sign face of the monument sign located at 201 N. Denton Tap Road, at the request of Bentley Engineering. City PI r Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, stating that this is the companion plat to the Special Use Permit case just approved and stated that staff recommen s approval of this request, with no conditions. 16 The applicant was present but did not speak. Chairman cCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward. were none. Chairman McCaffrey closed the Public Hearing. No discussion followed. Commissioner Clark made a motion to approve the Sonic Addition, Replat of Lot IR, Block A d Minor Platwith no conditions. Commissioner Halsey seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and tewart voting in favor. None opposed. A seven -minute brelak was observed. 16. PUBLICHEARING: Consider approval of Case No. S-1171, Coppell Beauty Shop, zoning cha ge request from HO -R (Historic Overlay, Retail) to HO-R-S.U.P (Historic Overlay, etail-Special Use Permit), to allow the operation of a beauty shop in a wooden re idential structure on commercial property and on-site asphalt paving at 456 E. Bet el Road, at the request of Hassan Khosravi. City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of the proposal, including photographs and a color board. She gave a brief history of this property, mentioning that when renovations were being done to this residential structure, inquiries were made from business owners, hence this request for a Special Use Permit to convert this residence into a commercial structure. Regarding the proposed sign, Ms. Moro asked the Commission to make sure this sign is compatible with the historic character of the area. Ms. Moro entioned that of the 15 notices sent to surrounding property owners, two favorable responses were received by the Planning Department; none in opposition. Ms. Moro then stated that staff recommends approval of this request, subject to the five conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Hassan Khosravi, 926 Su arbeny Drive, Coppell TX, was present to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions, stating that he is in agreement with staff comments. Chairman McCaffrey asked whether or not Mr. Khosravi was willing to work with staff as to the design of the attached sign. Mr. Khosravi answered in the affirmative. Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward. The following person spoke: Joe Shirley, 582 Villawood Lane, Coppell, TX — Owns the barbershop to the west of this structure and strongly supports this use. Since there is no standard in Old 17 Coppell for signs, he suggested that the size be determined by the Commission but asked that the lettering and colors be left up to the user. Ms. Moro pointed out that this Special Use Permit request is for a beauty shop — if this structure should have a different use, the applicant would have to go through the S.U.P. process once again. Chairman McCaBrey closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Clark made a motion to approve Case No. S-1171, Coppell BeautyShop, zoning change request from HO -R to HO-R-S.U.P, subject to the following conditions: 1) Modify the following dimensions on the Site Plan: • Proposed Asphalt: 34' x 3' =1,224 23'-2" x 7' = 162.4 • Runway (Addition): 10' x 23'-2" = 232 • Under notes section, the total parking and runway = 2,578.4 square feet. 2) Install wheel stops for the four parking spaces. 3) Meet with staff as soon as possible regarding the attached sign so that it will be in substantial compliance with surrounding signage in the area. This needs to be done prior to Council approval of size and font style. 4) Modify the following items on the Landscape Plan: • Plant summary table must provide name of plant species, quantities, and size of plant material at the time of planting (do not summarize existing plant material). • Show tree #9 shown on the Tree Survey on the Landscape Plan. • Clearly illustrate the location of the existing chain-link fence along the eastern property line. 5) Submit an irrigation plan that is signed and sealed by a licensed irrigator. Commissioner Nesbit seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. 17. Consider approval of the Freeport North, Lot 2, Block A. Freeport Building VII Site Plan, to allow the development of a 386,150 square foot office/warehouse facility on approximately 18.1 acres of property located along the west side of S. Royal Lane, approximately 470' south of Creek View Drive, at the request of Hardy McCullah/MLM Architects. City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced 18 the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of the proposal, stating the major concern staff has regarding the Site Plan is the off-site right- of-way dedication which is required for the future extension of Creek View Drive, which eventually will extend south to Bethel Road. She stated that without this right-of-way dedication, Lot 2, Block A, is not a buildable lot because it doesn't front on a dedicated street. After going into detail as to the alignment of the street which will impact the landscape calculations, and describing the proposed development, Ms. Moro then stated that staff recommends approval of this request, subject to the eight conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Kyle McCullah, Hardy, McCullah Architects, 12221 Merit Drive, #280, Dallas, TX, 75251, was present to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions, stating that he is in agreement with staff comments, mentioning that they are in working with the Fellowship Church on an agreement regarding the future Creek View Drive. He discussed the landscaping of the 3 Y2' berm, etc., and the fact that they'll be paying $14,200 in tree net retribution. No discussion followed. Commissioner Kittrell made a motion to approve the Freeport North, Lot 2, Block A, Freeport Building VII Site Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1) Before the replat is recorded with Dallas County, an off-site right-of-way dedication for Creek View Drive should be recorded and provided to the City. 2) The construction of the full width of the future Creek View Drive for half the length of the western property line of Lot 2, Block A, and the straightening of the alignment of Creek View Drive will need to be coordinated with the Engineering Department. 3) Modify the living screen proposed to screen the truck courts facing the future Creek View Drive to accommodate the realignment of the future Creek View Drive. 4) Obtain City Council approval for the living screen in lieu of a 6' -high masonry screening wall for loading areas facing the future Creek View Drive. 5) Limit interior office space to 37,200 square feet or less. 6) Submittal and approval of a preliminary irrigation plan. 7) A 50% landscaping credit will be applied, bringing the total retribution due equaling 142 inches of trees. 8) Approval of the color board specifying all exterior building materials. Commissioner Clark seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners 19 Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. 18. Consider approval 'of the Freeport North, Lot 3, Block A, Freeport Building VI Site Plan, to allow the development of a 227,280 square foot office/warehouse facility on approximately 12.1 acres of property located at the southwest corner of S. Royal Lane and Creek View Drive, at the request of Hardy McCullah/MLM Architects. City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, showing an exhibit of the proposal, stating that 85 percent of the interior space will be devoted to warehouse and 15 percent will be devoted to office space. After describing this case in more detail, Ms. Moro stated that staff recommends approval of this request, subject to the seven conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Kyle McCullah, Hardy, McCullah Architects, 12221 Merit Drive, #280, Dallas, TX, 75251, was present to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions, stating that he is in agreement with staff comments. No discussion followed. Commissioner Nesbit made a motion to approve the Freeport North, Lot 3, Block A, Freeport Building VI Site Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1) City Council accept extensive landscaping to screen the loading areas facing Creek View Drive in lieu of the 6' -high masonry screening wall. 2) Limit interior office space to 34,200 square feet or less. 3) Submittal and approval of a preliminary irrigation plan. 4) An off-site right-of-way dedication should be provided for Creek View Drive. 5) The construction of Creek View Drive across the western property line will need to be coordinated with the Engineering Department. 6) A 50% landscape credit will be applied, bringing the total retribution due equaling 215 inches of trees. 7) Approval of the color board specifying all exterior building materials. Commissioner McGahey seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. 19. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of the Freeport North, Replat of Lots 1-3, Block A, to allow recordation of fire lanes, access, utility and drainage easements on 20 three separate lots approximately 40 acres of property located at the southwest corner of S. Royal Lane and Creek View Drive, at the request of Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers. City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, showing an exhibit of the proposal, stating that staff recommends approval of this request, subject to the two conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Kyle McCullah, Hardy, McCullah Architects, 12221 Merit Drive, #280, Dallas, TX, 75251, was present to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions, stating that he is in agreement with staff comments. Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward. There were none. Chairman McCaffrey closed the Public Hearing. No discussion followed. Commissioner McGahey made a motion to approve the Freeport North, Replat of Lots 1-3, Block A, subject to the following conditions: 1) An off-site right-of-way dedication of Creek View Drive be recorded and provided to the City prior to the Replat being recorded with Dallas County. 2) The construction of the full width of the future Creek View Drive for half the length of the western property line of Lot 2, Block A, and the straightening of the alignment of Creek View Drive will need to be coordinated with the Engineering Department. Commissioner Clark seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. 20. General discussion concerning planning and zoning issues. A. Update on Council planning agenda actions Planning Director Sieb stated that he has just been advised by City Attorney Hager that there may be some changes in the docket based on Open Records requirements. Because he didn't specifically list items that went before Council on December 14th, he cannot update the Commission as to action taken by Council. He did mention, however, that the Coppell Crossing case was appealed to Council so that they can go before the Board of Adjustment. Also regarding the antennae which were proposed to go on the top of City Hall, he stated that this case is still pending, although the application will probably be withdrawn because at the Council meeting on the 14th, the City 21 entered into an agreement with AT&T to put one of the wireless antennae atop a light fixture in the park in exchange for a concession stand/restroom facility which will be similar to the pavilion at Andy Brown West. B. Director's comments Planning Director Sieb described some of the cases heard this evening as being tough decisions, urging Commissioners to keep in mind what the land use issue is. He then wished everyone a very happy holiday. Chairman McCaffrey also wished everyone a very Merry Christmas. With nothing further to discuss, the meeting adjourned at approximately 10:50 p.m. — �u-,-L Mno-A-- I'L. Rick McC ey, OainzifiA ATT ST• Barbara Jahoda, Sr. Administrative Secretary 22 Asa' ~v �a 71 7 I 4 \b� EXHIBIT A i v 1 Asa' ~v �a 71 7 I 4 \b� EXHIBIT A i v IL W ~ ixw f S J W a s< t Q IK = ttl Wp�� <p Z o u a J V -H p _. a� opx= k� r •a� si a +�+I _ � J < Z �� Eel N aa O _ U < O W „� A W a o u Y� < W J < W K 3 � W '