U-Haul-CS010315 CITY OF COPPEIJ~
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. Staff would typically not present the ease again, however legal counsel
recommended that we reproeess it due to formal application and filing fees being resubmitted.
Hence, the following staff report, with additions from the original study shown in #alics, is offered
for consideration Since the December 12 Council meeting (at which time the Council referred the
case back to the Planning Commission), additional alterations to the request have been made and
stows most recent response is shown in bold in the below written report.
CASE: U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, SITE PLAN
P & Z HEARiNG DATE: September 21, 2000 (November 16, 2000) (March 15, 2001)
C.C. HEARING DATE: October 10, 2000 (December 12, 2000) (April 10, 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
APPLICANT: U-Haul International, prospective purchaser
2727 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ. 85004
(602) 263-6502
Fax: (602) 277-1026
HISTORY: There 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. The Jack 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
Item# 4
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 Councd 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 nmlnimous vote on November 16. The case was
appealed to Council, and would have normally been heard on
December 12. On the 12a 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, lighting, 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.
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 m an overall analysis of the proposal. To understand
this entire issue, several action dates need to be kept in mind:
May 18~C?C called hearing to consider HC zoning
(cont. two months due to advertising error}
Jun. 2---letter from landowner opposed to }lC
zoning
Jun. 7--contract to purchase property signed
Item# 4
Jul. 20~unanimous CPC approval of HC zoning
Aug. 8 Councd 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 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
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
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. 18ta 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 Dec. 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 allowec[ During our
development review of the most recent submittal,(Oct. 18) the applicant
agreed advertising was not allowed but insisted that ~_ zoning permitted
display of U-Haul identified trucks. (Again, please see correspondence of
Item # 4
October 31, 2000 attached). There is no d~strict 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. 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 shown for the
majority of the building. A fffieen-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 Fire lane radii do
not meet minimum guidelines. Fire lanes conform on the new plan.
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 31j, 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 from 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 150feet of a residential zone can not exceed 35feet in height.
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;...aestheticaHy pleasing (buildings);...works closely with
governmental agencies;...ensures that aH 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.
Item it 4
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
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.
With regard to our latest 21 point review (attached), the applicant has
explained item #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.
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.
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
heatings, we again recommend denial of this proposal
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend approval of the request
Item # 4
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATI'ACHMENTS:
1) Packet of revised Information including:
Site/landscape plan, elevations, signage, survey information, brochure
2) U Haul correspondence of October $1. 2000 responding to most recent staff review
3) 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
Item # 4
DENTON TAP DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. ~--~
3721 Shenandoah St.
Dallas, TX 75205
(214) 520-3611 JUN - ~ ZOOO
2, 2oo0
City Council Via: Facsimile, Hand
City of CoppeH and Certified
255 Parkway Blvd.
Coppe[1, TX 75019
Gentlemen:
The undersigned is the owner of a 7.223-acre tract of land
southeast corner of Denton Tap Drive and State Highway 121 Bypass in CoppeLI. This
property was acquired from 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 fi'om its current classifications 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
well.
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 opportunity 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 Develo~ent, I~L.C.
Robert Hager, City Attorney
· .- ~:s~
Namu ~d Tide: N~e ~d Title:
Addeess:
Phc~x
'
Nam~ and ~e~~e,~=~
P~ll.~ TX 75~ ~ D Worth
I~L~ CO,~%~ AC~~CE
~ ~.e ~tm at and accep~ ~ S~r.e;~ Ma~y su~cc~
T H f C: I T Y 0 If
CO?I:'ELL
'" ~ January 10, 2001
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__z-
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 Tap Road, to the Coppell Planning Commission for reconsideration. The next Commission
meeting is scheduled for February 15u' with a presubmission deadline of 12 noon, Friday, January. 12u~,
since we will be closed Monday, January 15u~, 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
· clari~ing the hours of operation 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,
achn~_'°''f'~lt~nning~,,_,_*v-~ and Community Services
Cc Building Inspection
file
Z$$ ff&~(w&f · ~)0 eO][ 47e ~ COff~[t~. Tx 750~ ~f ?[~. g7Z/4~Z 0022 ~f FI, X ~72/104 ~e73
City of Coppell
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 Hght
standards from 25 feet to 30 feet)
5. Explain lighting ofbuilding. Couilding 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. Landscapo calculations should be placed on sito plan and indicate: intorior
landscape requiroment; perimotsr 1.e. requirement; non vehicular opon spaco
requiremsnt; all ac outlinod in Zoning Ordinance and ac sho~vn in our examplo
to you in our lotter dated January I0, 2001. (condition met)
8. Vorify landscaping ar~a calculations and plant material lir. t shown moot
minimtun zoning requirements (condition met).
9. All landscape areas not dimensioned (condition met).
10. All parking must be screened from neighboring property lines.
11. 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 excessiv~..(inereased 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. Elcvations do not track with onc another(condition met).
19. State maximum height of building on all exhibits.
20. Verify number and location of parking spaces on site. (condition me0
21. Explain changes to landscape plan (material, size, location, etc.) (condition
met)
Page 1 of 2