Vista Ridge Retail, L5-CS090115 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO.: PD-228R2-HC, Vista Ridge Retail
(Taste of Market Street)
P&Z HEARING DATE: January 15, 2009
C.C. HEARING DATE: February 10, 2009
STAFF REP.: Gary L. Sieb, Director of Planning
LOCATION: North of the NEC of S.H. 121 and Denton Tap Road
SIZE OF AREA: 1 .19 acres of property
CURRENT ZONING: PD-228R-HC (Planned Development-228 Revision-Highway
Commercial))
REQUEST: A zoning change to PD-228R2-HC (Planned Development-
228 Revision 2-Highway Commercial) to allow an internally lit
LED digital gas price monument sign for the convenience
store with fuel sales and drive-through.
APPLICANT: Applicant:
Warren Creason Realty
Warren Creason
500 N. Akard Street
Suite 3300
Dallas, TX. 75201
(214) 740-3390
Fax: (214) 740-3328
Owner:
United Super Markets, LLC
"Taste of Market Street"
7830 Orlando Ave.
Lubbock, TX. 79423
ITEM #6
Page 1 of 4
HISTORY: In February of 1998 Presbyterian Hospital was granted Site
Plan approval allowing two buildings—a 75,000 square foot
ambulatory care facility and a 45,000 square foot medical
office on a 14.8 acre parcel. The hospital was never built.
This request is located on a portion of that land.
In October of 2004, Council approved the development of
several one and two story general and medical office
buildings on 7.7 acres of property just east of the former
hospital site. That property has been partially developed.
In August of 2007, Council approved a mixed-use
development on the former hospital site. Included in the
request were retail, bank, convenience store, and a 70,000
square foot anchor building, Market Street grocery. The
grocery, convenience store/gas station, and a portion of the
retail strip development are scheduled to open around the
middle of January, 2009. The bank at the corner of the
project is currently open for business.
TRANSPORTATION: Denton Tap Road is a P6D, six-lane divided thoroughfare
(120 feet of right-of-way). Highland Drive is in the city of
Lewisville and has been developed to Lewisville standards in
a 75 foot right-of-way. Adjacent to the south of this
development, State Highway 121 has been developed to
freeway standards, contains one-way service roads, each 33
feet wide, and is constructed within 450 feet of right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- single-family residences/church; city of Lewisville
South -State Highway 121; city of Lewisville
East - developing office/medical buildings; PD-205R-HC,
Planned Development for highway commercial uses
West - vacant land; "HC", Highway Commercial
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan of May 1996, as amended, shows
the property as suitable for regional retail uses.
DISCUSSION: As stated in the applicant's Sign Design Proposal (attached),
three options for design and construction of the
convenience store/gas station sign have been provided.
ITEM #6
Page 2 of 4
Two Options (One and Two) are unacceptable to the city,
Option Three is supportable.
Option One is the requested design which has a red digital
read-out. As we understand from the applicant, this digital
sign would be programmed to change on a periodic basis
based on the price of gasoline, and would be an internally lit
sign. This proposal goes against the very grain of our zoning
ordinance and sign provisions. Section 12-29 of our sign
provisions clearly state that these digital type signs are not
allowed. Specifically, signs cannot distract motorists, nor
create nuisance due to brightness. In addition, prohibited
signs include those that contain moving parts, are internally
lit, cause glare or brightness, move or flash, or contain
luminous gas tubing. Finally, backlit plastic is specifically not
permitted.
In an on-site tour and inspection of the property, staff was
struck by the consistency in design, scale, material and
location of all existing signage on the entire 15 acre parcel.
This proposed digital sign does not fit the overall design of
the center, is clearly a manipulation of the signage package
included when the initial zoning request for this property was
presented, and does not lend itself well to the image of the
center. We view this request as an affront to the very design
of this shopping center and can not support it. Also, there is
not one other digital display sign in any commercial, retail, or
office development in the city and allowing it here is not in
harmony with the aesthetic and design guidelines this city
has nurtured over the last several decades.
Anticipating our objection to Option One—we had many
long, detailed and tedious conversations with the applicant
regarding the digital aspects of the request--we have also
been provided with other possible sign designs. Option Two
is basically the same as Option One with white LED's
replacing the red ones of the first proposal. We can not
support this option for the same reasons stated for Option
One.
Finally, the Option Three submittal meets all criteria of our
sign ordinance. It is externally lit, contains no LED lighting
and fits the same model found elsewhere in the city—
stationery, gas prices changed manually, meets the 40
square foot requirement, more consistent with existing
signage in this shopping center.
ITEM #6
Page 3 of 4
As stated above, there are major reasons Options One and
Two should be questioned. Each ignores our existing
ordinance. This type of signage has not been allowed on
any other commercial site in the city. They are not
architecturally compatible with the other signs in this center.
Allowing this sign type would create a dangerous precedent
that could have negative aesthetic repercussions
throughout the community.
We do, however, support Option Three. It complies with our
present code and would be a welcome addition to the
center. It exceeds the 75 foot side property line
requirement, and is 15 feet behind the front property line.
Design wise, it is the most attractive of the three and
presents no staff objection.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff is recommending DENIAL of this request as presented regarding
Options One and Two, for the reasons elaborated upon in the staff report.
We would support the Option Three monument sign with no conditions
being required as it complies with all ordinance guidelines.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Recommend approval of the request
2. Recommend disapproval of the request
3. Recommend modification of the request
4. Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Letter of Submittal dated December 17, 2008, and January 6, 2009
2. Site Plan
3. Signage Designs, Options 1, 2, 3
ITEM #6
Page 4 of 4