U-Haul-CS010621 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Note: This site plan is different, but the use is identical to a request unanimously denied by Planning
Commission in September, 2000. Staff' would typically not present the case again, however legal
counsel recommended that we repro~ss it due to formal application and filing fees being
resubmitted. Hence, the following staff report, with additions fi.om the original study shown in
italics, is offered for consideration. Since the December 12 Council meeting (at which time the
Council continued the case to January. then referred the case back to the Planning Commission),
additional alterations to the request have been made and staff's most recent response is shown in
bold in the below written report. On May 8. 2001, the Council remanded this case back to Planning
Commission since a number of changes had been made to the plan between Plannimz Commission
denial and City Council deliberation. The most recent staff analysis for the June 2001 hearing is
shown underlined and italicized
CASE: U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, SITE PLAN
P & Z HEAR/NG DATE: September 21, 2000 (November 16, 2000) (March 15, 2001) June
21. 2001
C.C. HEARING DATE: October 10, 2000 (December 12. 2000) (April 10, 2001) July i0.
2001
LOCATION: Along the south side of S.H. 121, approximately 350 feet east of
Denton Tap Road.
SIZE OF AREA: Approximately 2.02 acres of property.
CURRENT ZONING: HC - Highway Commercial
REQUEST: Site Plan approval for a three-story, 72,000 square foot warehouse
facility. The footprint of the building has increased from 24,810 to
27.360 square feet. a 2,550 square foot expansion. The warehouse.
showroom, dispatch building interior has increased by 150 square
feet.
Item # 9
APPLICANT: U-Haul International, prospective purchaser
2727 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ. 85004
(602) 263-6502
Fax: (602) 277-1026
HISTORY: Them has not been development activity on this parcel although the
Council approved a Jack-in-the-Box Restaurant on property to the
west of this parcel in May of this year.(2000) The ,lack in the Box is
currently under construction (now complete). A site plan request for
warehouse use was originally heard by the Planning Commission on
September 21, 2000, where it received unanimous denial. It was not
appealed to Council. Not only did the zoning not accommodate the
use, but there were several other developmental issues the applicant
failed to adequately address. Several of those issues are outlined in
the accompanying staff report. Between September and the
application date for November cases, the Council changed the zoning
from LI to HC, a zoning classification that does not support
warehouse use. A revised application was submitted to Planning
Commission in November, and the Planning Commission denied
the request by unanimous vote on November 16. The case was
appealed to Council, and would have normally been heard on
December 12. On the 121 however, there was a snow/ice storm in
Coppell, and the Council continued this request until the January
hearing date. On January 9*' the Council considered a case that
had numerous changes from the Commission submittal including
different landscaping, altered parking, changed screening,
modified elevations, and other revisions. Beyond the fact that the
Council was reviewing a different plan, additional concern was
expressed over the parking of large vehicles in front of the
building, fighting, and the clear glass for first, second and third
story windows. The City Council referred the case back to the
Planning Commission. The applicant has now submitted a
further revised application, and staff review of that request
follows in bold print. Between a Planning Commission denial of the
March 15. 2001 redesign, and the City Council hearing in May. the
applicant modified again plans for this site bv submitting new
information. The most recent submittal enlarges the building, shows
a 25 foot wide drive-through area. proposes some clear and some
smoked glazing, modifies the parking plan, alters the number and
size of storage areas, recalculates the landscaping requirement.
changes the masonry percentages, and generally presents yet another
variant on a plan consistently denied by Commission.
Item # 9
TRANSPORTATION: State Highway 121 will eventually be built here as a six-lane divided
freeway. The subject tract is adjacent to the eastbound one way
service road of this highway and consists of three lanes of pavement
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- State highway 121; City of Lewisville zoning
South - Denton Creek Middle School; SF-7
East - Denton Creek Middle School; SF-7
West - vacant site for Jack-in-the-Box restaurant; HC zoning
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for regional
retail uses of which this proposal is questionable at best.
DISCUSSION: This is a request for a use not allowed in the base-zoning category of HC,
Highway Commercial. In addition, there are several concerns with the plan
that merit mentioning in an overall analysis of the proposal. To understand
this entire issue, several action dates need to be kept in mind:
May 18--CPC called hearing to consider HC zoning
('cont. two months due to advertising error)
Jun. 2~ietter from landowner opposed to ItC
zoning
Jun. 7--contract to purchase property signed
Jul. 20--unanimous CPC approval of HC zoning
Aug. 8 Council continues HC to Sept. 12
Sept. 12--Councd approves HC zoning
Sept. 21--Planning Commission denies first request
Oct. I O--HC ordinance adopted
Oct. 18~new site plan application submitted
Nov. 16 CPC hearing and denial of second request
Dec. 12 City Council hearing (continued to Jan.
because of weather)
Jan. 9 Council refers case back to Planning
Commission (see attached letter dated Jan.
10, 2001)
Mar. 15 Planning Commission re-hearing and
recommendation for denial on third
consideration
April 10~Tabled at applicant's request
May 8. Councd remands plan back to Commission for
a June 21. 2001 reconsideration
Subsequent to Planning Commission denying this application on September
21, there was no appeal to Council and the applicant resubmitted a revised
plan on October 18, 2000. These dates are important in that the applicant is
claiming he submitted an application seeking site plan approval prior to the
zoning change disallowing his proposed use Although we strongly disagree
Item it 9
with that line of thought, we have processed this revised application~ Initial
review of this plan outlined at least 18 specific concerns of staff(see attached
U-Haul letter dated October 31, 2000). See attachment.
In addition to the time frame analysis, there are several concerns with the
plan that merit mention in an overall analysis of the proposal. For example,
details of the request show a three-story warehouse to be nm by the U-Haul
organization. The facility is shown to have several overhead storage access
doors on the first level that continue around the building. Many of these
doors have been eliminated in the most recent submittal. (the Oct. 18~ plan).
In addition, there are other, large access doors that create a rather unusual and
somewhat awkward scale to the building. Between Oct. 18 and Dec. 12,
the applicant made a host of changes including the moving of doors,
reconfiguring parking spaces, changing plant material, among others.
The plan submitted for the March 15 hearing basically reflects the
alterations between the Planning Commission plan of Nov. 16, and the
City Council plan of Dee. 12. The building is also shown to have a series of
different color schemes ranging from orange parapet stripe, to tan Dryvit (an
imitation of stucco) elevation, to forest green metal panels, to tan brick
facade, to light tan brick horizontal stripes, to vast areas of glazing, to an
undefined reddish colored series of overhead metal doors encompassing the
building. This jumble of building colors, materials, and finishes results in a
building that is very awkward looking. There are also several over-sized
parking spaces at the front of the building which are obviously placed there
for outside storage/advertising, which is not allowed. During our
development review of the most recent submittal,(Oct. 18) the applicant
agreed advertising was not allowed, but insisted that LI zoning permitted
display of U-Haul identified trucks. (Again, please see correspondence of
October 31, 2000 attached). There is no district in the Coppell Zoning
Ordinance that allows this type of vehicular signage. None has been added
subsequent to the Oct. 18 submittal. Landscaping calculations are not in
the proper form. Calculations are now in proper form. There are no
dimensions on the sidewalk. Sidewalk dimensions are now included
Appropriate landscape screening of parking spaces is not reflected on the site
plan. This has now been partially addressed. The June 2001 plan now
shows required screening of these parking spaces. Although there are three
examples of monument signage, it is unclear which one is preferred. In
addition, the sign should be the same masonry material as show~ for the
majority of the building. A fifteen-foot monument sign setback needs to be
specified on the site plan. The signage issues have now been resolved Plant
material does not indicate size/caliper of landscaping. The October 18
submittal indicates our minimum 3" caliper tree standard The June 2001
submittal shows 4" caliper trees replacing the 3" ones. Fire lane radii do not
meet minimum guidelines. Fire lanes conform on the new plar~
Item # 9
As stated above, upon review of the re-submittal, planning staff expressed 18
concerns, including improper zoning. In responding to those concerns (the
U-Haul letter of October 30, many of the comments do not satisfactorily
address the issue, and 6 of the 18 are still not resolved
The use proposed here is troubling in that it does not reflect a use recognized
by the Comprehensive Plan. As indicated by the Plan, regional retail uses are
those with good access to highways such as restaurants and retail centers. A
warehouse is not defined as a regional retail use, so fi.om the Plan's vision for
the future, it is not recommended for this site. Our re-analysis draws the
same conclusior~ Even if LI standards were applied to the most recent
submittal, there are several development violations including landscaping
area deficiencies of at least 1100 square feet; all parking areas do not
included landscape islands at their ends with trees in the landscape areas;
lighting proposed for the building is in violation of our zoning glare
standards; the color board submitted still does not detail glass to be used and
color of the overheard service doors; service doors on the front of the
building must be screened from public streets; all portions of the building
within 150 feet of a residential zone can not exceed 35feet in height. Some
of these issues have been addressed by the June 2001 re-submittal.
The applicant has provided you with additional information (first
presented to Council at its Dec. 15 meeting) for the March 15 hearing in
the form of a narrative and pictorial booklet attached to the exhibits.
Phrases used in the booklet to describe the relationship between U-Haul
and (apparently) some communities such as: "...mutually beneficial
relationships;...aesthetically pleasing (buildings);...works closely with
governmental agencies;...ensures that all local objectives and
specifications are met;...ensures local planning objectives are adhered
to"; does not accurately reflect the relationship we have experienced with
this applicant. That same booklet has been submitted for the June 2001
hearing.
The plan submitted for the March hearing addresses several of the
technical concerns outlined above, but is still inappropriate for this
property. It still violates the comprehensive plan; the base zoning is HC,
not LI as stated on the site plan (it is interesting to note they have added
on the most recent exhibit: "This site has been developed under the "LI'
zoning in place at the time of submittal"), and HC does not allow this use.
Several concerns expressed by Council have not been addressed
including the oversized parking spaces in front of the building (Council
requested those spaces be removed from the front of the building), and
Council's suggestion of a frosted glass or glass brick treatment to the
window areas. In addition, comments made during the review process
disagreeing with our signage requirements, inadequate width of at least
one landscape island, an increase in light standard height from 25 feet to
30 feet, three redesigned and oversized parking spaces on the east side of
Item# 9
the building (now shown as 30 feet by 12 feet) are all changes made since
the last submittal (in addition to the changes between Commission and
Council in January) that makes this request very difficult to evaluate,
lends a "moving target" perspective to the project and gives staff pause
as to what the final project is to look like. We have also requested a
revised color board and a larger sample of the "Sierra sunset" roofline
border color which have not yet been received. ,4 revised color board
reflecting the June submittal ]g~ been received, and will be circulated at the
public meeting.
With regard to our latest 21 point review (attached), (This comment
referred to the March 15 submittal, and is attached for review purposes only)
the applicant has explained item t/3, increased the height of item 04, noted
the building will not be externally lighted in item #5, complied with item
07, 08, #9, #17, #18, #20, and #21.
,4lthough some staff concerns have been addressed others have not and this
latest proposal shows a number of additional changes. For example.
although Councd expressed misgivings regarding the over-sized parking
spaces in .front of the building, and window treatments of this proposal, the
applicant has generally ignored those concerns. There are still three over-
sized parking spaces in front, and not all window areas are frosted, opaque,
or glass block as suggested. ,4lthough the applicant now claim~ his most
recent submittal is only 150 square feet larger than the earlier proposal, that
figure is very deceiving. When 3. 750 square feet is added to the footprint ora
building, a simply becomes bigger regardless of the wan/the interior spaces
are partitioned. In fact, in this case the building bulk has grown by more
than 10%/ In addition, the applicant has misinterpreted our parking
requirements, and his calculations are one space short of required parking
for this use where legally allowed. ,4 circulation drive on the west side has
been eliminate& elevations have again changed, masons, percentages are
altered, landscape calculations are different and parking spaces have been
reduced even though the building has gained square footage.
Additionally, questions regarding the non-conformity of the building if it
were built, all point to the fact that this proposal does not reflect sound
planning and development.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends denial of this request for a variety of reasons-several stated above-
and the fact that HC zoning does not allow general warehousing activities of any
type. Our assessment of this use not being proper at this location, not conforming to
base zoning, not complying with specific elements of the zoning ordinance, and
certainly not supportive of the Comprehensive Plan compels us to recommend denial
of this re-application.
Item# 9
Based upon the comments above, our re-analysis of the revised plan, and our
view that the applicant has not addressed concerns expressed in the public
hearings, we again recommend denial of this proposal
From the initial submittal some time ago. and with each subsequent review this
applicant has consistently ignored staff comments regarding this proposal. For
example, the zoning on this property is HC. yet the applicant ignores that fact by
placing a note on the submittal stating: "This site has been developed under the LI
zoning in place at the time of submittal". It has been our position from the very first
submittal that the zoning was changed to HC in September of 2000. with adoption of
the ordinance on October 10. The many iterations of this application were first
submitted to staff on October 18. Warehouse use is not allowed in HC zoning. The
Comprehensive Master Plan has shown this property to be utilized for regional retail
uses for over four years. Warehouse use is not regional retail. Other concerns relate
to the "moving target" this application has taken over the last several months, as
each submittal is different from the one preceding it. some substantially so. Room
mix continues to change, landscaping and parking is continually modified Although
Council suggested the oversized parking spaces in front of the building should be
relocated on the site, the most recent plan ignores that thought. Elevations are
different with each set of review documents submitted to staff. In addition, an
erroneous reading of the zonin£ ordinance results in the plan being deficient in
required parking. Also, as pointed out by Commission at the March 15, 2001
hearing, the perspective drawings are misleading showing fully mature trees that will
take years to reach the size indicated The brick screening fence dividing this
property from the school also misrepresents what is to be eventually constructed on
site. That same drawing shows all windows to be smoked glass with no interior
visibility, vet the elevations show clear glass in some of these same windows.
Although we had asked the applicant to specify window glass treatment in all
windows at the DRC meeting, the elevations still do not address that request.
Credibility has not been a strong point in our dealings with this application.
In summary, then, this proposal is not allowed by existing zoning, does not comply
with the Comprehensive Plan, has been proposed in violation of the zoning
ordinance, the exhibits offered miss-represent what would actually be constructed on
site. we have to guess at the overall appearance of this project, and the building is
now substantially larger than the original application denied by Planning
Commission no less than three times.
In essence this is the same request--only larger--heard by Commission and
consistently denied A denial is warranted again.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend approval of the request
Item # 9
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Packet of revised Information including:
Site/landscape plan, elevations, signage, survey information, brochure
including a staff requested floor plan of the facditv
2) U Haul correspondence of October 31, 2000 responding to (October) most recent
staff review
39 Copy of June 2, 2000 letter opposing HC zoning
4) Copy of June 7, 2000 contract of sale
5) Letter of January 10, 2001
6) Copy of March 1 development review comments
7_2 Copy of June 2001 development review comments
Item # 9
1i/02/00 TRU 0&:$8 F~I 214 745 5864 W$&JE DALL,~S FLOOR 54 ~002
U-HAUl;
CONSTRUCTION DEPARTME!?I'
U-HAUL INT'ERNAT]ONAL · ZT~? N. CI=NTP,,AI, AV~. · PI, E~ENIX. AZ ~
~o~r 31, 2~
NOV -2
Ga~
S~
P~nning Depa~mentJL
ci~ of coppe~
255 Par~y gou~vard
C~pell. Te~s 7~1g
Dear Sir.'
I am writing in response to the DRC comments dated October 27, 20(X~ regarding the site plan
submittal for U-Haut IntemalfonaL I have addressed each comment individualiy.
1. Th~s use is not allowed in the base zoni~'~g.
,At l~e ~me of tr~o s~:~mittal cf this proiect, the proi~erty carded the "Ll' zonircj des/gna:ton. Our use is
ccmpatibte with. and allowed in. tr;e "LI' Zoning district.
2. 77~e proposed use is not recommended by the comprehens~/e plan...
See al:x~ve.
3. A!l parYJ, ng spaces are not d'n'nensione(l.
It is c~Jstomary to dimension oP. ly one space in a lire of parking; it is assumed tl'~t t/'~ remaJc, ing
soace, s are identical in size :o that space. In order to ~urt~r clarify the situation ',,,e t'~ave added
no~afion "TYP' m each ot ~.e c/imer,.sfons. It :~is is not sufficient, f~lease specify how ycu wouJd like
spaces to Ce dimensioeecl a~.d we will comply.
4. 80% masonry requirement does not include Dryvit: we recommend against ~is mater~l on
20% p~nfon o! the busings.
Tl~e extador insulation and finL~h system makes up no more than 3% O! the front facade of tim building
and consictetat)a/lass wflen ~ cak:ulated across si rrm elevations. We have prevlous~ u__~d_ ~ as
p,'imary finish material on Du~ldirt§s in the Da~s area a,-x:l have no reaso,q to ~e~eve that It'e sinai
amount on this bui~ng will cor~stitute a prc~lem.
5 Landscape calculations sl:,ould be placed on tl',e site plan a~,d ~.d'~.ate: ~ter~r lard, scape
requkernenl; pe~rneter I.$. ~'equu'e~nenc no, vehicular ol;en.~ace mquira~nenC alias otrtl'u',ed
in tl~e zon~g orcl'~ance.
We have made every effort to calculate and presen~ the landscape requirements in complete detaa.
We r~ave ~s~ed each of the above requirements in a separate calculation, wi~ the zor/ng section, and
have even ~owded diagrams to explain each area. We are at a loss to explain how you could make
the claim that this ;nfon'nation is ncr on the site plan. If you have specif'g: objecl~'ts as to ~e
the calculations, pease s~are them and we wil be happy to
~£/0~/00 T~ 05:$8 F.~ Z[4 ?45 5864 WS&.~ DALLAS FLOOR $~ 1~003
6. Landscap~g ama and plant material list sllown do not meet minimum requirements.
In your letter dated September 22. 20~0 to U-Haul International your only comment with regard to the
tandscape was item No. 6 - that the "Plant materials do not specify size and caliper.' The d~awings
submitted to you c/early sta~e the size and caliper. The information is ~lentical in all other respects.
Please ~et us know specifically what requirements have been added since the September 22, letter and
we will provide you with this information.
7. All landscape areas not dimensioned.
Each ~andscape area includes a dimension of its depth. We would be happy to include any additional
dimensions you wish to specify. In the absence of this information I have relied upon this standard
architectural practice.
$. Parking must be $~eened /rom ne!ghbork~g property lines.
The parldng areas are screened fro~l the adjoining property lines with a new 5' rna.~nq/
This fact is c/eady noted and a detail has been Drovided per your previous request. At the September
7~' ORC meel~ng we stated ~hat it was our understand{ng that the drive to the west side of the p¢operty
need not be screened from an adjacent 'Lr' zoned property. At ti'tat time we aisc offered to provfd®
such screening ~f we were tn error. At no time clunng that meeting or after have you s~d that such
screemc~g ~s nec. essa,-?. If ~is is the [merit ol~ your comment, please show us where it is required by the
ccde ~c~ .~,~ .~11 ~rcvide
g. Parkir~ spaces ~ front seem excessive; no truck park~r~ with adver,jsing aJlow~d on site;
sto~,ng or d~splay o~ rental traZ~ers or vehicles not allowed in, pa[king spaces, or on site
As we informed you at the September 7'~ DRC meeting, the s~eces at the J~ronl; of I/-a site are sized to
a~w us to park our ~ental [rt~cks in tt-~se spaces. At that meeting you in,chined us that we ~x~uld not
be a',!c~,ed {o p~ace additional advertising signs on or arcund the vehicle.s, and w~ w~ll not'. No rental
equipment v.~!l ~ ~laced in a customer space. Your statement that the trucks and trai~ers for rent are
~ot a.lcwed cn t~e s,te is simply in error. The 'LI" zcnir'.g, whic~ enccmpassas ~he 'C' zoning,
specifically a[tow$ fcr 'Automobile a~.(J truck rantat' and ~railer rental." The w~rdi~.g is near and
sCecific.
~ 0. Screening '~all not allowed in '.h.e front yard.
Secl~on 34-f-8 (C) Pedme~e~ Landscaoln(~ states tha~ i:)arl~ng ar;d vehicular use areas Sha~ be
screen, ed ~mm pubac ~ghts-of. way 0y a 'wall, fence, hedge, berm, o~ other duml~le landscape barrier'.'
We ara not aware of a~f sec~on ol~ the code negaang this p~ovis~en. If such a negation exists, please
tell us what section, and v,~ w~l provide anothe~ [~orrn of screening.
~ L Inter~Cr i~tlted and ptasfic bubble s~nage not allowed.
Our sign detail c. early ca,ts out the tellers as 'pan-channel." You informed me that
acceotable sig~-age at ~he September 7~' ORC meeting. ! do no{ Imow what 'plaS~/C Cul:X~le s~gnage' is,
0u! I am confiden! Iha! a me~al chang, el teEer Ooes not fall into this c~tegory.
~ ~. Complete co,or ~oard requked.. .
Oue ~o the ~hree-day ~urnarcund requked by your schedule, and ~ specificity of the materials requE~¢l
in you~ ~st. we ~! provide this expanded materials 13oa~ for the Novembe~ 16" Planning
submission.
,t~/o~/oo T',CJ' 08:$9 F.~.~ ZI~ ?~$ $884 W,.~di DALLAS FZ,OOR
13. Lan2er sample o! 'S~erra Sunser' accent color needed; ~ of ~i~ ~ at top of bu~dir~ not
dimensioned.
We will provide ~ sample wffi~ ~® expanded color I~enJ. We am nc~ aware of any previous requ~
or requirement to dimension ~ ir~ividual details of the I~uildlng; however, the area in que~lon le 1Z'
high.
14. Over. all footprint dimensions are not shown on the p~u~.
The overall dimension of the building is 175' by 150' and Is, in fact, clearly shown on the plan.
15. North property lir~ not clearly lal)eled.
The north property line is ciea~ labeled as 'curve 1' and includes the radius, am length, de/la, chord
length and chord bearing. If there is further information that can be i~ovided for a curve, please specify
your requirements and we will provide it.
16. £~jhting proposed appears excessive.
The ighting shown is designed to standard used throughout the U-Haul system. Our previous
submittal included an identical ~l'~ting plan and no comments were provi~::~ed at that time. Your wording
indicates that this may be a su9gestion rather than a requiremenL If you have any sl:~ific sugge.s~ons
we would be haply to cons~d, er them.
17. City does not have a~ 'IL' zonv',g classification.
This was an error on our part. We have revised ~ clrawings to read 'Li" rather than 'IL." We regret
any con[usion [his may have caused.
18. Deceleration la~.e cot shown on pla~.
This c~ecelera~on lane did not exist at [he time our plan was drafted. We will endeavor to provide this
intorma[ion on the p[ar'.s for the November 16~ Planning & Zoning meeting.
If you have any questions, p~ase do not hesitate to cai me.
Since~9~.
Je/frey A. Evans
DENTON TAP DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. ~-)[-~
3721 Shenandoah St. {~OW~'~ '
Dallas, TX 75205
(214) 520-3611 JUN
J~e 2, 2000 CITY MANAGER
CITY OF COPPELL
Ci~ Co~cU V~: Facs~e, H~d
Ci~ of Cop~ ~d Ce~ed
255 P~ay Blvd.
Coppe~ ~ 75019
Gentlemen:
The undersigned is the owner ora 7.223-acre tract of land
southeast comer of Denton Tap Drive and State Highway 121 Bypass in Coppell. This
property was acquired fi.om Centex Development Company, who retained and continues
to own the 1.606-acre tract constituting the hard corner of what was originally a 8.829-
acre tract in total.
It has come to our attention that the City is considering a zoning change of this
property from its current classUieations of"Light Industrial" and "Commercial" to
"Highway Commercial". It is also our understanding that the Planning and Zoning
Commission has heard and approved the proposal. All of this has happened without any
notice to us, formal or informal. We understand that this is true with respect to Centex as
wetl.
We must and do object to this proposed action in the strongest possible terms.
Due process requires that we not only have notice but an opportunit7 to be heard on this
matter, with a reasonable time to prepare for hearings at each level of the re-zoning
process.
It is our intention to be a responsible developer in your community, and we would
hope that the City would, at a minimum, see that we are treated fairly.
Sincerely,
Denton Tap Devi~~,~._C:.
By:
cc: Gary Sieb, Director of Planning ~-.phen R. Thompson
Ro~rt Hager, City Anomey
U-Haul International
2727 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
RE: U-Haul International, Site Plan
Dear Madam/Sir:
This letter is to inform you that on Tuesday, January 9, 2001, the Coppell City Council remanded the U._..:-
Haul International. Site Plan. to allow the construction of a three-story mini-storage facility on
approximately 2.02 acres of property, located along the south side of S.H. 121, approximately 350 feet east
of Denton/ap Road, to the Coppell Planning Commission for reconsideration. The next Commission
meeting is scheduled for February 15a' with a presubmission deadline of 12 noon, Friday, January 124,
since we will be closed Monday, January 15a~, in observance of Martin Luther King, Jr., Day.
There were several comments made by Council regarding your application, including: · the use of opaque glass/glass block in window openings;
· lighting of the proposed building and its effect on surrounding neighborhoods;
· landscaping calculations track with Ordinance requirements (see attached example);
· moving oversized truck parking spaces to the side/rear of the building, and
· clariS, lng the hours ofoperation to be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. seven days a week.
We presume you will address these issues, at a minimum, with your resubmission. If you cannot prepare
new exhibits by Friday, I have attached a copy of our revised submittal schedule. In order to provide the
Commission and Council accurate information, please include full color renderings with your submission.
No additional filing fees will be required.
If you have any questions, please contact us at (972) 304-3675 at your convenience.
Sincerely,
~recto~of Planning and Community Services
A tachments (2)
Al[tachn?nts_(2)
Cc Building Inspection
file
City of Coppetl
Development Review Committee Comments
Planning Department
U-haul International
Site Plan Approval
Southside of S.H. 121, east of N. Denton Tap Road
DRC Date: February 22, 2001, March 1, 2001
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: March 15, 2001
City Council Meeting: April 10, 2001
1. This use is not allowed in base zoning.
2. The proposed use is not recommended by the Comprehensive Plan; in
addition:
3. Your Site Demographics block indicates the zoning of this property as LI.
The correct zoning is HC. You need to change the development standards in
that block.
4. Specify height of light standards "A" and "B".-(increased height of light
standards from 25 feet to 30 fee0
5. Explain lighting ofbuilding.(building will not be externally lighted)
6. 80% masonry requirement does not include Dryvit or EFIS; we recommend
against these materials on the 20% non-masonry portion of buildings.
7. Landscape calculations should be placed on site plan and indicate: interior
landc~:apo roquirement; porimeter 1.s. roquiremont; non vohicular opon spaco
requirement; all az outlined in Zoning Ordinance and as o.,ho,,vn in our example
to you in our l~tor dated January 10, 2001. (condition met)
8. Verify landscaping area calculations and plant material lizt :hown mc, et
minimum zoning requiremonts (condition met).
9. Ail landscape areas not dimcnsioned (condition met).
10. All parking must be screened from neighboring property lines.
1 I. Parking spaces in front seem excessive; no truck parking with advertising
allowed on site; storing or display of rental trailers or vehicles not allowed in
parking spaces, or on site; no portable signage allowed.
11. Interior lighted and plastic bubble signage not allowed.
12. Complete color board required; application was missing sample of glass.
13. Larger sample of "Sierra Sunset" accent color needed based upon elevation
note.
14. Lighting proposed appears excessive(increased height of light standards
from 25 feet to 30 feet)
15. Explain oversized parking spaces in front of building.
16. Explain window glazing treatment on building.
17. Verify square footage of building. (condition met)
18. Elevations do not track with one another(condition met).
19. State maximum height of building on all exhibits.
20. Verify numbcr and location of parking spaces on sitc. (condition met)
21. ,Explain changes to landscape plan (material, siec, location, etc.,) (condition
met)
Page 1
City of Coppell
Development Review Committee Comments
Pkannlng Department
U-haul International
Site Plan Approval
Southside of S.H. 121, east of N. Denton Tap Road
DRC Date: May 31, 2001 and June 7, 2001
Planning & Zoning Commi.~sion Meeting: June 21, 2001
City Council Meeting: July 10, 2001
1. The use is not allowed in base zoning.
2. The proposed use is not recommended by the Comprehensive Plan; in addition:
3. Your Site Demographics block indicates the zoning of this property as LI. The
correct zoning is HC. You need to change the development standards in that block.
~l. Dimonsion all four sides of lot in Interior Land,apo block. (CONDITION MET)
5. Specify gross squaro footago of building utilized for offioe uso.(CONDITION MET)
6. Spocify gross squaro footago of building utilizod for c~owroom/rotail ur, o.
(CONDITION MET)
7. Dimonsion all side~ of building on site plan. (CONDITION MET)
8. Parking requirements are calculated on a gross square footage basis.
9. Need all graphics as jpeg filos at the when you ro~bmit on June 12th. Th~ can bo
submitted on dire, CD or o mailed to mdiamond(~ci.coppell.tx.ug. (CONDITION
MET)
10. Specify glass type for each window area.
11. Explain window-glazing treatment on building.
12. Verify building footprint has grown from 24,810 to 27,360 square feet.
13.80% masonry requirement does not include Dryvit or EFIS; we recommend against
these materials on the 20% non-masonry portion of buildings.
14. Parking spaces in front seem excessive; no truck parking with advertising allowed on
site; storing or display of rental trailers or vehicles not allowed in parking spaces, or
on site; no portable signage allowed.
15. Complotc color board rocluired, including gla~ samplcs. (CONDITION MET)
16. Explain oversized parking spaces in front of building.
17. State maximum height of building on all exhibits.
18. Insure site plan, elevations, and renderings all match.
Note:
A. Please revise plats, site plans, landscape plans, and building elevations based on
staff recommendations. Should applicant disagree with staff comments please
provide reasons why staff recommendations should not be followed when you
attend the June 7th Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting.
B. Each applicant will bring two new sets of revised plats and plans to the June 7th
DRC meeting. Applicants will be asked to show, explain and defend any revision.
An Engineer for the project or other representative is urged to attend the meeting.
C. Applicant will have till noon Tuesday, June 12a to resubmit fourteen (14)
folded copies of revised plans, three (3) reduced paper copies (8 1/2 X 11) and
JPEG files of each exhibit to the Planning Department.
Page 1 of I