Loading...
BM 1999-11-18 PZMinutes of November 18,1999 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMIISSION 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, November 18, 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, Graduate 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 October 21, 1999. Commissioner Kittrell made a motion to approve the minutes of October 21, 1999, as written. Commissioner Nesbit 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 -176& McMillan Estates, zoning change request for property zoned PD -176 (Planned Development -176, Single Family -9), by amending the planned development conditions to permit the extension of a 54" reinforced concrete pipe eastward for an approximate distance of 155' an the installation of a stone headwall on 1.49 acres of property located along the north side of Bethel Road, approximately 120' east of Hearthstone Lane, at the request o 1 Terry Holmes. Planning Director Gary Sieb introduced the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of the proposal and stating that when previous plans were approved, it was with the understanding that if the 54" sewer line were to be extended from the western property line across to the creek, this case would need to come back through the Public Hearing process. Because the grading plan and tree survey/mitigation plan show different configurations of the pool, cabana and patio locations (the grading plan did not address tree mitigation at all) and considering significant damage to existing trees would take place, Mr. Sieb said that staff recommends denial of this case until such time the applicant has addressed these issues. Some discussion centered around where the pool/cabana/patio are to be located and the location of the floodplain. James McMillan, 524 Leavalley Circle, Coppell, TX, was present to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions. Terry Holmes, 510 Country Lane, Coppell, TX, was also available to answer questions. Discussion centered on whether an arborist or landscape architect had been contacted to determine the survival of existing trees if this property were filled in. Mr. McMillan replied that it is his intention to save as many trees as possible and that an arborist has been consulted. He reiterated that tree mitigation has never been an issue with him. Mr. McMillan emphasized that the large ditch running across his property is mainly a safety issue for his family. Chairman McCaffrey declared the Public Hearing open. Mr. Holmes was asked to explain exactly what is being planned with regard to the extension of the sewer pipe, what will happen to the existing trees, what their mitigation plan would entail, etc. Mr. Holmes said that there are differing opinions as to what would kill a tree and what would not, stating that three large trees would be affected — an American Elm, which is a very weak tree, a 16 -inch Great Oak tree which may ultimately die and may have to be removed, and a Cedar Elm, stating there is better than a 50% chance of saving this tree if a well were dug. He stated that a Cedar tree would come out because it has a very small top on it. Mr. Holmes also stated that they are still saving enough caliper inches to meet and exceed what the Tree Ordinance requires and feels that mitigation is not actually required. It was suggested that he meet with staff to make this determination before the Commission can approve this request. Mr. Sieb addressed Mr. Holmes comments and read staffs position into the record as follows: "The issue that precipitates our denial is the proposed 54 -inch storm sewer extension. It is unlikely that extension can be completed without additional damage to the existing tree cover, and until we have assurance that tree stock shown as being preserved in the original zoning proposal can be preserved/mitigated, we cannot 2 endorse this change. This case should be denied until such time as the grading plan, the extension of the storm sewer, the tree preservation plan, and all flood plain removal criteria are met to the satisfaction of the City. Because so much additional information is needed before we can make a rational recommendation—there are just too many loose ends that need to be addressed this case must be denied." Mr. Sieb also referred to the Leisure Services comments, quoting, in part: "The Tree Survey should reflect the total caliper inches of trees on the site, the caliper inches of trees removed to date, the caliper inches yet to be removed and the total caliper inches to remain on the site after development." Mr. Sieb reiterated staff's recommendation of denial, stating that to date, staff does not have enough information to give a rational decision on this case. Mr. Holmes requested that this case be postponed rather than denied. Chairman McCaffrey advised Mr. Holmes that the December docket is full and this case would need to be postponed to the January Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. At this time, Chairman McCaffrey asked for people present who wanted to speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward. Those speaking were: Tracey Garman, 707 Cambridge Manor Lane, Coppell, TX — Spoke as a member of the Tree Board and having been asked to look at this property by an adjacent homeowner of this property. Because no tree mitigation was required relative to Council's approval of the zoning change, she feels strongly that the Tree Ordinance should be strictly adhered to and enforced. She feels as though people don't fully understand what the ordinance states for residential development. Because this property is not yet owner occupied, she feels that the ordinance is fully enforceable. Ms. Garman acknowledged that if a retail or commercial development had been approved for this site, a preservation credit would have been applied to this development; however, in residential development, there is no such credit, and in her opinion, Mr. McMillan should be made to mitigate trees which have been removed. She doesn't want to see a net loss of trees in the community due to this project. If trees cannot be placed on site, she would like to see more trees in the parks, etc. Larry Wender, 310 Hearthstone Lane, Coppell, TX — Feels that this development is a bad idea. Cannot understand why Council waived the tree ordinance. Is very concerned about the preservation of the trees. Mr. Wender showed pictures of trees being removed from the property, feels that there's been a shocking amount of destruction of existing trees and plead that the Commission deny this case and not put any more trees in jeopardy. William Webb, 334 Brock Street, Coppell, TX — Stated that the McMillans have leveled their property, except for the large trees. He's concerned about the headwall 3 that Mr. McMillan wants to extend to the back of Mr. Webb's property which is soft sandy loam. This extension will continue to erode the creek and he wants this issue addressed. Paul Volpe, 306 Hearthstone Lane, Coppell, TX — Is concerned about the headwall which is on his property, how it will be extended and asked whether or not the pipe would be covered. Also has concern about the trees on the property. Planning Director Gary Sieb addressed some of the issues raised by citizens. He acknowledged that 155 caliper inches of trees were not mitigated because in a Planned Development, a recommendation can be made that the mitigation be waived, stating that in this case, because there were 882 caliper inches of trees to remain and 155 caliper inches to be removed, both the Commission and Council recommended that the mitigation not be required because so many trees were left on site. He stated that at one point the Landscape Ordinance did say that a Planned Development could not waive the mitigation element of that ordinance, but that was not the ordinance passed by Council. Mr. Sieb referred to the term "leveled". He stated that the property has been cleared of a lot of underbrush and a number of trees have been removed, but both he and Brad Reid, Park Planner & Landscape Manager, believe that the developer is following the tree mitigation plan that they originally submitted. Regarding the velocity of the water that will shoot out of the storm sewer when extended, he referred to the Engineering staff comment regarding this issue. Mr. Sieb then addressed the concern about what the pipe will look like once it is extended. He referred to the grading plan which shows that the pipe will slope down to the base of the gully and then extend towards the creek, mentioning that at some locations, the pipe will be covered with five or six feet of fill. Mr. Sieb stated that staff would like to support this proposal, but believes that more work needs to be done before such a recommendation can be made. Commissioner Stewart asked whether or not the applicant intends to work with staff to resolve outstanding issues. Mr. McMillan stated that thus far, his property has been cleared according to the guidelines set by staff. He stated that he will work with both staff and the community, adding that there's a safety issue regarding the ditch. He and his family want to be able to use the entire property, not just half of it. Terry Holmes stated that he will certainly work with staff and will clarify issues of concern. Commissioner McGahey made a motion to postpone and hold open Case No. PD -176 McMillan Estates, to the Commission's January 20, 2000, meeting Commissioner Halsey 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. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of the Gateway Business Park, Reulat and Site Plan of Lot 2R, Block 2, to allow the development of an 80,000 square foot office/warehouse facility on approximately 6 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Gateway Boulevard and Exchange Circle, at the request of Halff Associates, Inc. City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of the 4 "build to suit" project for Advanced Graphics Products, Inc., including a color board. After advising the Commission of areas of concern relative to the Landscaping Plan, Ms. Moro stated that staff recommends approval of this project, subject to the seven conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Derek Downs, 7634 Caterita, Dallas, TX, was present to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions, stating that he questioned whether or not a berm is required adjacent to the truck court. Ms. Moro stated that typically, truck courts need to be screened from public right-of-way and although the building is not facing Exchange Circle, staff would like to see either a tilt -wall extension or a berm with landscaping. Chairman McCaffrey pointed out that other buildings in the area are bermed and this suggestion would fit in with surrounding properties. 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. Commissioner Kittrell asked if the applicant will provide the suggested type of screening. Mr. Downs said a berm will be provided with the landscaping as shown. Commissioner Kittrell made a motion to close the Public Hearing and approve the Gateway Business Park, Reulat and Site Plan of Lot 2R, Block 2, subject to the following conditions: 1) Approval of a color board showing all exterior building materials. 2) A 150 square foot landscape area with a tree being incorporated into the staircases shown in the truck court. 3) Rectify the discrepancy of the total site square footages, as well as the number of staircases shown on the site plan and landscape plan. 4) Substitute the Red Yucca shown on the Landscape plan with a plant material listed on the City's approved plant palette. 5) Additional fire lane needed on south side (adjacent to Gateway Blvd. and Exchange Circle). 6) An executed Tree Removal Permit will be required prior to removing trees from the site. 7) Easements for TXU facilities will be required on plat. Commissioner Clark seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. 5 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of the Lam Lee Addition No.l, Replat, to allow the recordation of utility easements and correction of the rade and width of the fire lanes on approximately 13.1 acres of property located along the east side of Royal Lane, approximately 600' north of Creekview Drive, at the request of Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers. City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of the proposal, stating that for the Commission's information, in January, the Board of Adjustment granted a parking reduction from 290 spaces to 80, adding that both the Site Plan and Landscape plans need to be revised to reflect what was approved. She then stated that staff recommends approval of this Replat, subject to the five conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Commissioner McGahey questioned if this building were expanded and sold in the future, what would happen with regard to the parking requirements? Ms. Moro stated that the original Site Plan showed an adequate number of future parking spaces adding that any new addition would have to meet City Code or the applicant would have to go back through the Board of Adjustment process. Ms. Moro also mentioned that the landscape requirements are sufficient regarding the future expansion. Ms. Moro went on to say that staff recommends approval of this Replat, subject to the five conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Chris Jones, Pacheco Koch, 9401 LBJ Freeway, Dallas, TX, was present to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions, stating that he had with him the revised Site Plan, indicating the future expansion, the additional parking and the revised treed landscape island. He stated that he was 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 Nesbit made a motion to approve the Lam Lee Addition No. 1, Renlat, subject to the following conditions: 1) Correct the width of the southern fire lane on the Site Plan to match the width of the fire lane on the Replat. 2) Modify the planting island shown at the southeast corner of the parking lot to reflect 150 square feet of landscaped area and a minimum width of 9'. Also, the island must contain at least 1 tree. Ci 3) Revise the landscape plan to reflect the proposed changes and submit a copy of the new plan for staff approval prior to the recordation of the replat. 4) Any future expansion should be shown on both the Site Plan and Landscape Plan. 5) Developer must notify the Parks Department prior to performing any excavation in the median or right-of-way. The developer must repair any disturbed utility to the satisfaction of the Parks Department. Commissioner Kittrell seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. 7. Consider approval of the Coppell Crossing Addition, Lot 4, Block 1, Final Plat and Site Plan, to allow the development of a 11,570 square foot retail facility on approximately 1.5 acres of property located at the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and the D.A.R.T. right-of-way, at the request of Dunaway Associates, Inc. Planning Director Gary Sieb showed an exhibit of the proposal, stating that this plan does not meet the City's minimum landscaping requirements and stating that staff recommends denial of both the Site Plan and Final Plat. He added that in order to meet these requirements, the building's size would need to be revised and if this happens, it's possible that the fire lanes would also have to be revised. City Attorney Bob Hager suggested that a motion be made to consider the next agenda item at this time. Commissioner McGahey made a motion to review Items 7 and 8 simultaneously. Commissioner Halsey seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. 8. Consider approval of the Comell Crossing Addition, Lot 5, Block 1, Final Plat and Site Plan, to allow the development of a 9,942 square foot retail facility on approximately 1.1 acres of property located along the west side of MacArthur Boulevard, approximately 580' north of the D.A.R.T. right-of-way, at the request of Dunaway Associates, Inc. Mr. Sieb then showed an exhibit of this proposal, stating that staff's comments are identical to those made in Item 7. David Cannon, Architect, 6709 Creekside Lane, Plano, TX, was present to represent these items before the Commission and answer any questions, stating that the owner of the property does not agree with staff s interpretation of the Codes. When asked what the basis of this statement was, Mr. Cannon said the main reason is that this is a large piece of 7 property that has been broken up into smaller parcels with only property lines separating them. The main issue that they disagree with is the fact that they are required to have perimeter landscaping around each one of the interior parcels which makes the landscaping square footage very high, making development very difficult. Chairman McCaffrey asked if they increased the building sizes from the original approved concept plan. Mr. Cannon stated that this plan was done a long time ago and it was only a concept plan. He stated that the owner is developing each piece of property as he gets a tenant and now the City is taking those original measurements as the maximum square footage that can be developed. The owner does not agree with this concept. When asked if they realized if the building size increased, the amount of landscaping that would be required would also increase, Mr. Cannon stated that he didn't understand the question. Then he stated "No, not necessarily, at all — as a matter of fact, that's not the way the formulas are." Commissioner Halsey asked why the applicant doesn't meet Code? Mr. Cannon stated once again, that they do not agree with staff's interpretation of the main issue which is the perimeter landscaping issue. Commissioner McGahey stated that the applicant has increased the size of the buildings but has not met the landscape criteria. Once again, Mr. Cannon stated that they do not agree with staffi s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Cannon's view of the proposed impact of the property. Mr. Cannon stated that their intention is to do a very high quality, Grade A development in this area and once this development is completed, the City of Coppell will be proud of it. He added that his client does not agree with the way the landscaping is being broken up. Commissioner Stewart stated that his interpretation of a Grade A quality development would include sufficient landscaping relative to meeting the City's Ordinance. Commissioner McGahey made a motion to deny both the Coppell Crossing Addition, Lot 4, Block 1, and the Coppell Crossing Addition, Lot 5, Block 1, Final Plats and Site Plans. Commissioner Kittrell seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor of denial. None opposed. 9. Consider approval of the One Twenty One Business Park, Lots U2, Block 1, Site Plan Amendment, to allow the reduction of parking spaces, total square footages of non -vehicular open space and interior landscaping, as well as the relocation of trees and placement of a 8' concrete sidewalk around the buildings on 21.6 acres of property located at the southwest corner of Coppell Road and Canyon Drive, at the request of Gromatzky, Dupree and Associates. Planning Director Gary Sieb introduced the items to the Commission, showing an exhibit of the proposal, stating that staff recommends approval of this Site Plan Amendment with no conditions. Mac McClure, 13206 Cedar Lane, Farmers Branch, TX, was present to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions. Commissioner Stewart asked for the number of trees that will be moved and whether or not they would be replaced if they should be injured and died. Mr. McClure stated that no trees presently exist — he was relocating theoretical trees. He also mentioned that originally he was 52,000 square feet over the required minimum landscaping requirements and now he'll be 44,000 square feet 8 over what's required. The Commission commended Mr. McClure's effort. Mr. Sieb added that the trees are being reconfigured because of the increased sidewalk width. Commissioner Nesbit made a motion to approve the One Twenty One Business Park, Lots 1&2, Block 1, Site Plan Amendment, with no conditions. Commissioner Clark seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. 10. Consider approval of the Stratford Manor, Amending Plat, to allow modifications to the sight visibility easements and the recordation of a common area, utility, wall maintenance and landscape easement on 15.13 acres of property located along the north side of DeForest Road, approximately 1,000' east of MacArthur Boulevard, at the request of Dowdey, Anderson and Associates, Inc. City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of the proposal, stating that staff recommends approval of this request with no conditions. The applicant was not asked to appear before the Commission. No discussion followed. Commissioner Stewart made a motion to approve the Stratford Manor, Amending, with no conditions. 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. Consider approval of the Coppell Town Center Addition, Site Plan Amendment, to allow the development of 47 new parking spaces to the south of the Police and Courts facility on 13.9 acres of property located at northeast corner of Town Center Drive and Town Center Boulevard, at the request of Dowdey, Anderson and Associates, Inc. City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of the proposal, giving a history of this area and stating that the YMCA has entered into an agreement with the City to build this parking lot on City property, the timing of which is critical to the YMCA in order to meet their projected growth. She stated that the Fire Department is requiring a 24' wide fire lane unless "no parking" signs are posted along Town Center Boulevard, adding that the Engineering Department will be submitting an Ordinance for City Council approval in the near future basically prohibiting parking on both sides of Town Center Boulevard from the Wendy's site north to the Justice Center. She then added that should this Ordinance be denied, the applicant will be required to replat the property to include the 24' fire lane. Ms. Moro then stated that staff recommends approval of this request, subject to the six conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Curt Hazelbaker, Executive Director of the YMCA, 146 Town Center Boulevard, Coppell, TX, was present to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions, stating that on the Master Plan for the parking lot, they can still add 45 spaces to the southern end, if there is need. He stated that he was in agreement with staff comments, 9 saying with regard to the parking lot lights, the poles that are currently in the YMCA lot match those in the City's lot. The same poles will be used in this new parking lot. Some discussion followed with regard to the timing of the "no parking" signage. Commissioner Kittrell made a motion to approve the Coppell Town Center Addition, Site Plan Amendment, subject to the following conditions: 1) A 24 foot wide fire lane is required unless "no parking" signs are posted along Town Center Boulevard in front of this parking lot. 2) Should City Council deny the ordinance prohibiting parking on both sides of Town Center Boulevard starting from the Wendy's site north to the Justice Center, the applicant will be required to replat this property to include the 24' fire lane required of the Fire Department. 3) The following irrigation equipment should be utilized in lieu of that indicated on the plans: • Toro Scorpio Radio Operated Controller in lieu of the Irritrol. 4) All trees should be irrigated by a bubbler system operated independently from the turf zones. 5) Submit information on parking lot lighting. Such lighting must meet City and staff requirements. 6) Obtain approval from the Town Center Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Halsey seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. Commissioner Kittrell asked Mike Martin whether or not a 4 -way stop sign would be placed at the intersection of Town Center Boulevard and Town Center Drive. Mr. Martin replied that a stop sign study would be made once the shopping center opens. 12. General discussion concerning planning and zoning issues. A. Update on Council planning agenda actions Planning Director Sieb updated the Commission on the Planning and Zoning cases brought before Council on November 9th. B. Director's comments There were none. With nothing further to discuss, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8 p.m. 10 Rick McCaffrey, thairrn6 7r, ATS * S: BArbarkk. Jahoda, Sr. Administrative Secretary 11