U-Haul-CS001116 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. Staff would typically not present the case again, however legal counsel
recommended that we reprocess it due to formal application and filing fees being resubmitted.
Hence, the following staff report, with additions from the original study shown in italics, is offered
for consideration.
CASE: U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, SITE PLAN
P & Z HEARING DATE: September 21, 2000 (November 16, 2000)
C.C. HEARING DATE: October 10, 2000 (December 12, 2000)
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. /he Jack m the Box is
currently under construction. 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
Item#6
adequately address. Several of those issues are outlined m the
accompanying staff report. Between September and the application
date for November cases, the Council changed the zoning from Id to
HC, a zoning classification that does not support warehouse use.
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)
Jul. 20--unanimous CPC approval of HC zoning
Aug. 8 Council continues HC to Sept. 12
Sept. 12~Council approves HC zoning
Sept. 21--Planning Commission denies request
Oct. I O--HC ordinance adopted
Oct. 18~new site plan submitted
Nov. 16 CPC hearing
Subsequent to Planning Commission denying this application on September
21, the applicant resubmitted a revised plan on October 18, 2000. These
dates are important ~n 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 applicatior~ Initial review of this plan outlined at
least 18 specific concerns of staff(see attached U-Haul letter dated October
31. 2000).
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 mn by the U-Had
organization. The facility is shown to have several overhead storage access
doors on the first level that continue around the building. Many of these
Item # 6
doors have been eliminated in the most recent submittal In addition, there
are other, large access doors that create a rather unusual and somewhat
awkward scale to the building. The building is also shown to have a series of
different color schemes ranging from orange parapet stripe, to tan [h3Mt (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 ve~ 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, the applicant agreed
advertising was not allowed but insisted that ~ 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. Landscaping calculations are not in the
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. 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 majori~ 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 Fire lane radii do not meet minimum guidelines.
Fire lanes conform on the new plar~
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 31), 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 conclusion. Even if LI standards were applied to the most recent
submittal, there are several development violations including landscaping
area deficiencies of at least I100 square feet; all parking areas do not
included landscape islands at their ends with trees m the landscape areas;
lighting proposed for the building is m 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 m height.
Item it 6
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.
ALTERNATIVES:
I) 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) Packet of Information including:
Site/landscape plan, elevations, signage, survey information
2) U Haul correspondence of October 31, 2000 responding to most recent staff review
Item# 6
11/o2/oo TH(.: 08:$7 FAX 2J. 4 ?~864 w$&M DALLAS FLOOR $4~-, ~'~,.,; ~ ~O01
WINSTEAD SECHREST & M~ICK ~
~ P~,,~ C~ I ~t~m~ c~ C~#~ D~~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ " 5~ R~ai~ncc T~c~
NOV - 2 ~0 ,~o, ~ s=.
D~u, T~l 75270
~LECO~~A~ON ~S~~ ~ 21 ~45-5390
~.=~fl~d.cem
dirc~ d~: ~1~74~-57~5
mfl~rmn~fl~com
PLEASE DELIVER TO THE TELEPHONE FAX NUMBER:
FOLLOWING: NUMBER:
Gary Sieb, City of Coppell 972-304-3570
MESSAGE:
FROM: Arthur J. Anderson
ATTOI~%'EY #: 179 CLIENT-MATTER #: 13868-54
NUMBEROF PAGES: s~[ INCLUDLNG COVERSHEET. PLEASE CALL DEBBIE
CLARK AT 214/745-5726 or 214/745-5747 IF YOU DO NOT RECEWE THE, TOTAL NUM.BER
or PACES OR iF rP ' S SSlON iS o'r ADA LE.
DATE: November 2, 2000 TIME SENT: ~' ~ e'~. m.
X ORIGIN.aL WILL NOT FOLLOW ORIGINAL WILL FOLLOW VIA:
Regular Mail Hand Delivery
~ O~'erni~ht Delivery Other
Thc information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended for
the use of the individual or entity named above. If thc reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. [f you have received this fax in error, please
ifi'unediately notify us by telephone, and rztum the original me.ssagz to us at the above address via the U. S. Postal
Service.
::ODMALPCDOCS~.DALI. AS_I',.13~0703Xl
20g:99)993-1
11/02/00 THU 08:58 FAX 214 7~"'"~884 WS&M DALLAS FLOOR 5:'-" ~002
U IAUL
CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL · Z'/~7 N. CENTRAL AVE. ,, PHOENIX. AZ 85004
lis i] ¥
October 31, 2000
'¥ NOV - 2 2000
Gary
$ieb
Planning Deparl;ment .L .~'
City of coppell
255 Parkway Boulevard
Coppell, Texas 75019
Dear Sir:
i am writing in response to the DRC comments dated October 27, 2000 regarding the site plan
submittal for U-Haul International. I have addressed each comment incrrvidually.
1. This use is not allowed in the base zoning.
At the time of the submittal of this project, the property carried the '1_1" zoning designation. Our use is
compatible with, and allowed in, the "LI" Zoning district.
2. The proposed use is not recommended by the comprehensive plan...
See above.
3. Afl parking spaces are not dimensioned.
It is customary to dimension only one space in a line of parking; it is assumed that the remaining
spaces are identical in size to that space. In order to further clarify the situation we have added the
notation "TYP" to each of the dimensions. If ~his is not sufficient, please specify how you would like the
spaces to be dimensioned and we will comply.
4, 80% masonry requkement does not include Dryvit: we recommend against this material on the
20% portion of the buildings.
The extedor insulation and finish system makes up no more than 3% of the front fa~l:ade of tile building
and consicle,'ably less when the calculated across all the elevations. We have previously used this as a
primary finish material on buildings in the Dallas area and have no reason to believe that the small
amount on this building will constitute a proOlem.
5. Landscape calculations should be placed on tl~e site plan and indicate: interior landscape
requ~ement; perimeter I.s. requirement; non. vehicular open space requirement; all as outlined
in tl3e zoning ordinance.
We have made every effort to calculate and present the landscape requirements in complete detail.
We 13ave listed each of the above requirements in a separate cak:ulation, with the zoning section, and
have even provided diagrams to explain each area. We are at a loss to explain how you could make
the claim that this information is not on the site plan. If you have specific objections as to the contentof
the calculations, please state them and w~ will be happy to respond.
1[/02/00 TI-IU 08:58 FA~ 214 74"'*'-*'~$4 WS&M DALLAS FLOOR 54 '-" ~005
6. Larxlscaping area and plant material list shown do not meet minimum requirements.
In your letter dated September 22, 2000 to U-Haul International your only comment with regard to the
landscape was item No. 6 - that the 'Plant materials do not specify size and caliper.' The drawings
submitted to you clearly state the size and caliper. The information is identical in all other respects.
Please let 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 adcrrtional
dimensions you wish to specify. In the absence of this information I have re~ied upon this standard
architectural practice.
8. Parking must be screened from neighboring property lines.
The parking areas are screened from the adjoining property lines with a new 6' masonry sc~eenwal[
This fact is clearly noted and a detail has been provided per your previous request. At the September
7~' DRC meeting we stated that it was our understanding that the drive to the west side of the property
need not be screened from an adjacent 'LI" zoned property. At that time we also offered to provide
such screening if we were in error. At no time dudng that meeting or after have you said that such
screening is necessary. If this is the intent of your comment, please show us where it is required by the
code and we will prc~vide it.
g. Parking spaces ~ front seem excessive; no truck parking with advertising allowed on site;
stonng or display of rental trailers or vehicles not allowed in parking spaces, or on site
As we informed you at the September 7~ DRC meeting, the spaces at the front of the site are sized to
allow us to park our rental trucks in those spaces. At that meeting you informed us that we would not
be allowed to place additional advertising signs on or around the vehicles, and we will not. No rental
equipment will be placed in a customer space. Your statement that the trucks and trailers for rent are
not a~wed on the site is simply in error. The "LI" zonir'.g, which encompasses the 'C" zoning,
specifically allows for 'Automobile and truck rentar' and ~trailer rental." The wording is c~ar and
specific.
10. Screening wall not allowed in the front yard.
Section 34-1-8 (C) Perimeter LandscaDin(~ states that parking and vehicular use areas shall be
screened from public rights-of-way by a 'wall, fence, hedge, berm, or other durable landscape barrier."
We are not aware of any section of the code negalJng this provision. If such a negation exists, please
tell us what section, and we will provide another form of screening.
1 I. Inter~or I~ghted andplastic bubble s~gnage not allowed.
Our sign detail c!early calls out the letters as 'pan-channel." You informed me that this was an
acceptable signage at the September 7~' DRC meeting. I do not know what'plsstJc bubble signage' is,
but I am confident that a metal chan~el lelter does not fall into this category.
12. Complete color board requYed...
Due to the three-day turnaround required by your schedule, and the specificity .o~f We materials required
in your list. We will provide this expanded materials board for the November 16 Planning Department
submission.
1[/02/00 THU 05:$9 FA~ 214 ?-'*-"$854 WS&M DALLAS FLOOR 5~---- ~004
13. Larger sample of "Sierra Sunset" accent color needed; w[o~ of th~s band at top of buffding not
dimensioned.
We will provide this sample with the expanded color I:~ard. We a~e not aware of any previous request
or requirement to dimension the individual detaib of the building; however, the area in quesl~on is 12"
high.
f 4. Over-all footprint dknensions are not shown on the plan.
The overall dimension of the building is 175' by 150' and is, in fact, clearly shown on the plan.
15. North property line not cleerO/labeled.
The north property line is clearly labeled as 'curve 1' and includes the radius, arc length, delta, chord
length and chord bearing, ff there is further information that can be provided for a curve, please specify
your requirements and we will provide it.
16, L~ghting proposed appears excessive.
The lighting shown is designed to standard used flqroughout the U-Haul system. Our previous
submittal included an identical lighting plan and no comments were provided at that time. Your wording
indicates that this may be a suggestion rather than a requirement. If you have any si~ecific suggestions
w~ would be happy to consider them.
17. City does not have an 'IL" zoning classif~,ation.
This was an error on our part. We have revised the drawings to read "LI" rather than "IL.' We regret
any confusion this may have caused.
18. Deceleration lane not shown on plan.
This deceleration lane did not exist at the time our plan was drafted, We will endeavor to provide this
information on the plans for the November 16~ Planning & Zoning meeting.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey A. Evans