Town Center West-CS000217 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO.: PD-178R, TOWN CENTER WEST
DETAIL SITE PLAN OF A RETAIL CENTER
P & Z HEARING DATE: February 17, 2000 (case continued from December 16, 1999 and
again on January 20 in order for staff to review a revised plan)
C.C. HEARING DATE: March 14, 2000 (originally to be heard on January 11, 2000)
LOCATION: Southwest corner of N. Denton Tap Road and Town Center West
Boulevard.
SIZE OF AREA: An approximate 1.8-acre site out of a 4.5-acre parcel.
CURRENT ZONING: PD-C (Planned Development, Commercial)
REQUEST: PD amendment to allow the construction of a 13,393 square foot
retail/medical/restaurant facility.
APPLICANT: Yorkshire West Capital, Inc., Tr.
Alan Hinckley
12201 Merit Drive, Suite 170
Dallas, TX. 75251
(214) 9914600
HISTORY: This property has had no recent development history, although a
street was delineated and a conceptual PD was approved in the
summer of 1999. At the December meeting there was some
question regarding whether a public hearing was required.
Attached copies of correspondence between staff and the
applicant's attorney advise a public hearing is required. (Staff
understands the applicant is reconsidering his site design and
will submit a revised plan before the January 20~ meeting.
We will reserve further comment on this case until planning
Item//4
staff has had an opportunity to review the resubmittal, which
was not received by docket deadline.)
We received a revised plan the week of the scheduled public
hearing but not in time to adequately review the changes. We
requested that Planning Commission continue the case until
February in order to allow staff an opportunity to properly evaluate
the plan. The applicant submitted a request to be heard in
February. We have reviewed the latest plan, our recommendation
appears below, in italics.
TRANSPORTATION: Denton Tap Road is a P6D, six-lane divided thoroughfare
contained within 110-120 feet of right of way. Proposed Town
Center Blvd. West will be a 27-foot wide local street allowing
access to the Coppell High School property.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- existing single-family development; PD-129, SF-9
South-vacant; "C', Commercial
East- Comerica Bank; "TC~ Town Center
West -single family housing; SF-12
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property suitable for
retail, commercial uses.
DISCUSSION: When the Conceptual Planned Development District was approved for
this parcel, uses were discussed only superficially, hence, the reason for
the detailed site plan review. Submitted for consideration is an
approximate 13,500 square foot retail building which has very little
information regarding specific uses. This lack of specificity is
troublesome to staff in that we can not offer substantive advice on
whether a specific user would or would not be allowed in the building.
Absent that helpful information, the elevations give one the impression
that the building meets our regulations, the monument sign is
appropriately sized (though improperly located), and parking shown
appears to comply with code. However, the landscape plan is deficient
in parking islands, a 10 foot landscape buffer is required on the south
property line, thirty foot high light f'txtures are questionable here
adjacent to a residential neighborhood, and staff requested landscape
Item//4
calculations have not been provided. In addition, driveway spacing
along Town Center West Boulevard is much too numerous for safety's
sake, in the opinion of planning staff.
In sum, PD's offer a certain mount of flexibility in the development
process, and can address specific issues relative to individual situations.
In this instance, however, the application appears to be totally
speculative and from staff's perspective, our concerns with meeting
minimum standards have not been met. With building size reduced,
landscape requirements being addressed, issues regarding traffic safety
being resolved, lowering the light standard height and a number of other
minor bothersome concerns undertaken, staff could eventually support a
similar request. At this point, though, these concerns have not been
properly addressed and are inconsistent with ordinance requirements.
This application needs work, and at the present time appears to be a bit
too intensive in design.
As indicated in the history section of this report, we understand a
revised plan is forthcoming, although it did not meet our docket
distribution deadline.
This case has turned into a very difficult request to evaluate. An
uncooperative attitude and misunderstandings from attorneys (see
attached correspondence; Planning Director was not in January 11
meeting), erroneous interpretations of the PD by staff, changes to the
development plan, modifications of staff review, nuisance cross-
referencing of drawings to make sense out of the proposals, have resulted
in confusing/misleading comments from both sides. In an attempt to
create some order out of this application, the following additional
information is presented.
The revised plan submitted the week of the Planning Commission
hearing contained several changes to the initial proposal. Included
(among others) were:
A change in use from retail to retail medical and
restaurant
A change in the landscape plan which reflected a
landscape buffer on the south side of the building
A reduction in the required 30 foot building line on the
north side to approximately 19feet
Item//4
In analyzing the resubmittal, staff listed a number of issues that needed
to be addressed. Attachment #9 lists our concerns with the proposal.
The applicant did not appear at the requested development review
committee meeting (highly unusual in itself), electing instead to respond
with the comments in this same attachment. Long story short, issues still
needing to be addressed include:
Height of light standards
Individual lot landscape calculations
Monument sign location
Information on type, color, size of tenant signs
Total height of buiMing including roof structure
Denton Tap pont yard is 60 feet; Town Center West pont yard is
30feet as specified in the approved PD
Brick pavers need to be shown in south driveway
Need copy of shared access agreement with south property owner
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends DENIAL of this request based upon the comments
presented above.
Staff reserves comment on this application until a detailed analysis
can be completed, hopefully before the January 20 Planning
Commi.~sion meeting. If we can not complete our review, or if other
issues are raised by it, we will recommend continuing this case for
another month.
We are now at a point where we can develop a recommendation, and
address the concerns still needing resolution. Although the zoning
ordinance allows light fixtures to be 30feet in height, it is staff position
that a fixture with maximum height of 2O feet is more in keeping with the
residential subdivision to the north. The Sonic drive-in has no pole
lighting, and the proposed development to the west of this user shows no
pole lighting either.
We have not received landscape calculations for each lot proposed, and
without those calculations (which are required by ordinance) we can not
support the plan submitted.
Item #4
The third concern, monument sign location, needs to be resolved. Our
ordinance states monument signs are located at least 75 feet from property
lines, the sign as submitted does not meet that distance requirement.
Tenant signage needs to reflect CIVIC guidelines.
Elevations need to show overall height of structures
Approved PD setbacks need to be noted on all plans (which may
necessitate reduction in size of building)
Plans need to reflect brick pavers in south driveway
IF these issues can be resolved to staff satisfaction prior to Planning
Commission hearing this case, approval would be in order; if not, denial is
recommended. This case just seems to linger on and on and on. It is time
to get it resolved.
ALTERNATIVES:
I ) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend denial of the request
3) Modify the request
4) Take under advisement for additional information
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Detail Site Plan
2) Architectural Site Plan
3) Proposed Floor Plan Schematic
4) Elevations/Monument Sign
5) Tree Survey
6) Landscape Plan
7) Departmental Comments
8) Correspondence between staff and applicants attorney (Dec 16 thru
Jan. 13, 2000)
9) Most recent correspondence from applicant (Feb. 3), staff review
corrtll~nts
Item//4
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - 9
ENGINEERING COMMENTS'
ITEM: PD-178R. Town Center West. Detail Site Plan Review of a Retail Center. a
zoning change request to amend the planned development and allow the
construction of a 13,393 square foot retail facility on approximately 1.8 acres of
property located at the southwest corner of N. Denton Tap Road and Town
Center West Boulevard, at the request of Dowdey, Anderson and Associates,
Inc.
DRC DA TE: November 23, 1999 and December 2, 1999
CONTACT: Mike Martin, P.E., Assistant City Engineer (972-304-3679)
COMMENT STA
1. The minimum driveway spacing for a 30 mph street is 90'.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
ITEM: Town Center West. Lots 1 and 2, Block A. Preliminar~ Plat, to allow the
development of a retail center, daycare facility and child development center on
approximately 4.5 acres of property located at the southwest corner of N.
Denton Tap Road and Town Center West Boulevard, at the request of Dowdey,
Anderson and Associates, Inc.
DRC DATE: December 28, 1999 and January 6, 2000
CONTA CT: Mike Martin, P.E., Assistant City Engineer (9 72-304-3679)
REVISED
AFTER P&Z
No comments.
JAN 1 4 2000
City of Coppell
Development Review Committee Comments
planning Department
PD-178R TOWN CENTER WEST
DETAIL SITE PLAN
1. parking spaces will determine square footages of uses now proposed
2. reconsider height of light standards
3. landscape calculations are required for each lot, not combined lots
4. parking island between not more than 15 parking spaces required
5. monument sign must be at least 75 feet from property line
6. 50 % of required landscaping must be provided in from yard area
7. delineate potential signage for each user, i.e., size, color, font style, etc.
8. dimension total height of building
9. detail space between building walkway and parking areas (is there any landscaping
between the two?)
10. landscape/ft, yd. provisions will be consistent with PD-178 3-lA
11. PD-178 states a 30 ' sideyard along Town Center Blvd. yet the plan shows 18'- 2"
12. r.o.w, and 10' sidewalk/utility easement shall be conveyed to City prior to plat
approval
13. show brick pavers in south driveway
14. provide shared access agreement with property owner to south
15. front yard parking necessitates a 60 foot building line along Denton Tap Road
DRC Date: January 27, 2000
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: February 17, 2000
City Council Meeting: March 14, 2000
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 February 3rd Development
Review Committee (DRC) meeting.
B. Each applicant will bring one new set of revised plats and plans to the February 3rd 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, February 8th to resubmit eighteen (18) folded copies of
revised plans and three (3) reduced paper copies (8 1/2 X 11) of each exhibit to the planning
Department
\\TWN CTR\USERS\CentralkP&ZSTF~febcomments~PD- 178-RTOWN CENTER
WEST- DETAIL PLAN.doc
~2/1~3/99 14:31~ CITY ~ COI~ELL '~ ~'72 ~ ~ --'-- NO.(~4:] I[~lB2
---. Feb-O3-~OR OT:'gM~ PrgJr'41NSTiAD ..,;l~ilt & iIINICK/S ~14"/'d,l-S3lO T-;Z94 I).OOZ/O0? F-13T
I~/INSTEAD SECHREST at MINICK
Oal)~ ~
Re: To~ Cenxer West- Demo Sim Pl~ Appro, al
De~ Bob;
Same song, ~econd verse with respect to the altaC]l~[ staff comments. Ora' client is very
frustrated that thc City of Coppcll Plarmin~ Deparlmmt continu~ ~o um'ea.~onably widabold and
delay approval of' the detail site plan. As you confirmed followifl~ the January 11 meetin~ you
arrafl~, all panics consulted including the Planning Director, City' EnaJneering and Property
Owner were in agreement. Since f~! agreement was re~l~ed with the two modification.q requested
by d~e City and accepted by the Estate, it was clear that no outstanding issues re~a,_'ned. On
January 20, my client relied on your communication and test of tEe City Staff that no new or old
issues remained prio~ to ~hc postponement of'their Site Plan and Preliminar7 Plat bern'Jag before the
Planning & Zoning Commission. Now for my cEcnt to r~.-ceive t~mher development review
cornmJ~ ("DRC") comments on Janua.,y 28 for a meeting scheduled on February 3 is contr,~ to
what you, City Staff and Rte Planning Dkcctor have previously committed.
We respectfully decline attendance at the upcoming DRC meeting as the City Sm.fY DRC
comments are now outdated, and ~ revised plans previously submitted for the January 20 P&Z
heating have addressed all thc issues raised. Specifically, the revisions to Ge site plans rela~,_'~: to
landscaping and side yards are in compliance with requests by thc Plannin8 Director dutinll the
January 11 meeting. The traffic report by DeShazo & Associates was submitted to Ken Griffin on
Sanuary 19 which conclusively ~howed no ra'affic conflicx remains.
As you 'know, this process bcpn almost fee years 4o at the requ~s~ ~itiaJed by the City for
additional right of' way. Not only had the Estate worked diligently and I'airly with thc City to
accommod~e its request for additional right of'way at o significant cmt and effort to my client, but
DALLAS nOUSTOAf AI, fSTId MI~CICO CITY IJ
~. E. Hager. E~.
J
~crc is ~li~e on ~ a~md ~ by ~c Cily z~ ~ Es~Te wo~d nm
or p~vcn~ ~om ~v~loping ~ sile, My cii~n~ ~ Iolera~d exc~ivc ~la~s ~ ~ co~in~
~ ~y ~i~ n~rou~ lac ~q~sls ~ c~s ~ ils pl~s b~ ~c Ci~ S~over ~ ~ of
~o DRC ~finis ~d (o~ si~fic~s rou~s ofpl~ ~submi~s,
~o~ ~~m~s in o~ m work ~ ~ g~&l~es
Sl~. ~c~ confined dchys ~d lack offollo~ ~u~ on ~ ~rc~n~ made b~ ~ Ci~ ~d
I s~e no rein ~hy ~is ~! Sile ~ application ~ould
e~li~ converto m ~uss s mu~y ~b~ r~hfion of~is m~.
~hur J. An~n
AJA/pi~
Gay Sieb {via fax 9?2/304-3547)
Alert Hinckley (via fax 977~991-7500)
· .ODlI~U~"~i3CSq)AL LA~/_I ~31~37&~ I
179: I ~s~42-2
- - (~'2/(~3/(~ 14:38 CITY I~ COPI~LL ~ 9'72 3~,4 ?Bg2 --,,. NO.(~3 1~4
--;" Fib-03-Z00G '0!:S6'm Fros-WINSTEAL .;HIIEST & idlNICK/~ ZI4-?4S-~3e0 1-:p84 P.O04/OO? F-13T
. Appe,~ to be ~n FYJ
· Phns cc~ply with C%Iy ofCo~il L,jM~ S~v~ ~. ~
~ SIW P~ as ~d i~ md~ ~ inKaSlvO OVOr~l ina ~bl~ ,~
I. ~- ~ ~kv~Mn ~ PI~ Su~bed ,
9. ~ Sid~k i~ n~ on pins pr~i~sl~ S,l~
J I PM) C~pIF w~ ~ r~h~ ~ ~S l/I I~ b) ~ PIKinI DGr~ & City
w~cb ~cl~ ~TiOnd ~&~ ~ ~ ~ Sf~ ~ fluil~n8 ~d U 18' 2~ ~J~ Y~.
:'
} 2. ~c - ~r 1 S, i~. ~ fibd of ~C~d - Vol. ~]S ~ 44~ & VD) ~ I O0 PS' S~
r~t?8 ~ -Cap~n'~ Coe~
~. Un~rc ol'~h~ ~1 ~ r~kc~Kd
4. ~vi~- di~ ~d aphid m iii l
5. ~ ~.~ Site P~
5. D~-'Ir~ nl~lf ~ ~~ by~ t ~ia~ to Ci~ ~ Jan
7. Done- ~ m D~ ~n~ ~ ~ ~" ~ Ju I 1~. Co~u poliq r~rn
hpp~iaxe
2. ~t~ S~ Voider md Parc Da P~lifniAi~ Pit
3. ~PI~ C'~plies ~ PO ~i?l mt 55 ~c~. S~ ~~ Pl~
4. ~S~ P~l~i~ P~T