Loading...
Coppell Industrial-CS000420 (2)CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE NO.: PD-185, COPPELL INDUSTRIAL ADDITION P & Z HEARING DATE: C.C. HEARING DATE: April 20, 2000 May 9, 2000 LOCATION: Along the north side of W. Bethel Road, 50' east of N. Royal Lane. SIZE OF AREA: Approximately 100 acres of property (actually 99.97 acres). CURRENT ZONING: LI (Light Industrial) REQUEST: PD-LI (Planned Development, Light Industrial) in two phases with Phase One being a 600,000 square foot building with a 350,000 foot expansion; Phase Two being a 900,000 square foot building. APPLICANT: Applicant: Champion Partners James Stewart 15601 Dallas Pkwy. Suite 100 Addison, TX. 75001 (972) 49O-5600 Fax: (972) 490-5599 Architect: Meinhardt and Quintana David Meinhardt 14900 Landmark Suite 650 Dallas, TX. 75240 (972) 980-8980 HISTORY: There has been no recem development history on the subject property. TRANSPORTATION: Bethel Road at this location is projected to be a C4D, four-lane divided thoroughfare contained within a 90 to 110 foot right of way. Today it is a two-lane asphalt street, projected to be improved no sooner than the next three to five years. Item #11 SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North- vacant, WagonWheel Park; LI Light Industrial South - postal distribution center; LI, Light Industrial East - vacant; LI, Light Industrial West -vacant, sun dial; LI, Light Industrial COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for light industrial and showroom uses. DISCUSSION: This is a very confusing case in that the applicant shows several parking schemes, is platting only a portion of the site yet proposing PD zoning over the entire parcel, suggests an addition to the first building leaving when that might occur open-ended. There are a number of inconsistencies between this proposal, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and staff observations that might warrant this case being reconsidered at a later date. That said, the proposed development for this 100 acres meets the use recommendation of the Comprehensive Master Plan, and we have no concern with the use. Rather, staff has directed its review to the physical aspects of the parcel. Of concern to us is the overall scale of this facility, its impact upon the area, the appearance of the finished product, signage, some questions regarding landscaping, and parking provisions. What we have proposed here are two very large buildings--one of 600,000 feet, expandable to 950,000, and a second of potentially another 900,000 square feet. Being so large, their presence on the landscape will certainly influence development potential for the surrounding properties. That being the case, the architect needs to take pains to design structures that offer elements de-emphasizing the shear size of this project. Breaking up the faCade of a building that is a minimum 1200 feet long (expandable to almost 1900 feet!) and at least 36 feet high should be required. For example, the provision of "edges" and coruers along the fagade will visually shorten the length of the building. Providing additional landscaping against the building, adding berms (especially along the north- south axis), and introducing additional evergreen natural screening will assist in reducing the mass of these buildings. Additional setbacks off Bethel Road and Creekview Drive would also reduce the scale of these enormous structures. During deliberations with the architect he resisted these suggestions and mentioned that he planned to use a "paint scheme" (whatever that means) to de-emphasize the massiveness of these buildings. Although the applicant has shown a detention area to handle the drainage requirements as well as acting as a credit for his over-all landscaping requirement, we would point out that the detention area is on a separately planed lot which Item # 11 would not normally be counted in determining overall landscaping requirements. Because this is a PD, it can be considered here, however. We have minor inconsistencies between the applicant's required landscaping figures and ours (we calculated approximately 660-690,000 square feet of required landscaping, the applicant indicated 641,000 square feet), but on a 100-acre site, the difference is not significant. Regarding the detention pond, carefully planned plantings are required here so that we do not end up with an unsightly, dry drainage bed in the summer months when rains are minimal. Extensive screening from the public right of way would assist in addressing this concern. Also, some discussion was held regarding whether detention (a pond which is wet only during rainy weather) or retention (a pond in the purest sense that's wet year round) ponds were most desirable, and cost became an issue for the developer. Signage for this zoning district allows a maximum size of 60 square feet. The applicant has indicated he needs larger signs because of the magnitude of the development, and is showing signage as great as 125 square feet. Staff feels the buildings themselves are going to more than adequately advertise this project, and signs larger than allowed by code are not warranted. The applicant is proposing a parking standard that does not meet our development requirements. He has included a number of examples of projects in other locations he feels justifies his request. Staff can not support this request, we have no assurance that the buildings will always be leased to the same users, and we have found through hindsight (the IBM center) that our industrial area seems to be requiring more parking, not less. Because of these concerns, it is difficult for staff to recommend this request, and it should be taken under advisement. If, however, the Planning Commission recommends approval, there are several conditions which must be addressed. RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: We feel this case needs to be taken under advisement until all our concerns are adequately addressed. The applicant is reluctant to postpone the hearing. That being the case, staff can only support this request if the following conditions are met: -a technique other than painting be used to tone down the vast length of the structures, e.g., add corners, reveals, building landscaping, and other architectural elements -signage comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance Item # 11 -all roof-top mechanical equipment be screened from public view -Zoning Ordinance parking requirements be met -minimum required landscaping be met with ultimate parki~,g in place -Departmental comments be complied with (Primarily Leisure Services and Engineering) 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) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Zoning Exhibit Architects Letter, Parking Analysis, Lighting, Signage, Colored Elevations Site Plan and Elevations Concept Planting and Irrigation Plans Site Parking Plan Fully Parked Phase I and II Concept Planting Plan Departmental Comments (Planning, Leisure Services, Engineering) Item #11 08: 5-J CITY DEVELOPMENT LEI$1IRE SERVICES I'IF, M: Coppell lndustrial Additton, Zoning DRC DATE: March ~0, 2000 CONTACT: Brad Reid, Park Planning and Landscape Manager STATUS: PRELIMINARY~.~ ~ The tree survey indicates 1,169'' of Invtected trees will be removed as a result of development, with O' preserved. A landscaping credit of 585'' will be allowed due to replanting of the site. Further reparation for 584" of removed trees is require~ This amounts to a payment of $58,400 to be paid to the Coppell Reforestation and Naturalization Fund. ~..