Town Center West-CS000120 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: January 20, 2000 (case continued from December 16, 1999)
C.C. HEAR/NG DATE: February 8, 2000 (originally to be heard on January 11, 2000)
LOCATION: Southwest comer 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 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 sub,it a revised plan before the January 20°' meeting.
We will reserve further comment on this case until planning
staff has had an opportunity to review the resubmittal, which
was not received by docket deadline.)
Item #5
TRANSPORTATION: Demon 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- Comefica 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 Developmem 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 monumem sign is appropriately sized, and parking shown
appears to comply with code. However, the landscape plan is deficient in
parking islands, a lb foot landscape buffer is required on the south
property line, thirty foot high light fixtures are questionable here adjacent
,~ to a residential neighborhood, and staff requested landscape 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 amount 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 fi.om 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
Item #5
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.
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
Commission 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.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend denial of the request
3) Modify the request
4) Take under advisement for additional information
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Architectural Site Plan
2) Proposed Floor Plan Schematic
3) Elevations/Monument Sign
4) Tree Survey
5) Landscape Plan
6) Departmental Comments
. 7) Correspondence between staff and applicants attorney
Item #5
WINSTEAD
Decemb~ 16, 1999
~. ~ Sieb VIA ~
DiOr of
City of Conill
2~ P~ay Blvd.
Co, ell, ~ 7f019
Re: PD178 Si~
Pursuant to my m~ti~g with the City Attorney this moraing, ~ letter serves as a r~ues~
to delete the two publishing items on tonight's P&Z agenda related to PD1 ?g. The applicant's si~e
plan applications were erroneously mischaracterized as zoning charges requiring public hearing in
the public noticc scat to the adjoining property owners. Due to the mistake lathe notice, tonighfs
public hearings should be canceled. In thc alt~raativ¢ a~l without waiving our client's legal rights,
the applicant requests that any zoning charge request as to PD178 be withdrawn. The si~ plan
applications are not zoning charge re. quests and should be properly noticed a~d considered at the next
regularly scheduled P&Z meeting.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hcsitat~ to con~act mc.
Sincerely yours,
ce: I. David Dodd, III (via fax 214/965-0010)
Glen Hinekle7 (via f~x 972/991-7500)
DEC LB '99 12:L4 214 945 ~ PID~..~.9~
The City With A Beautiful Future
OPPELL, TEXAS 75019
December 17, 1999
Mr. Arthur J. Anderson, Esq.
Winstead Seehrest & Minick
5400 Renaissance Tower
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270-2199
RE: December 16. 1999, letter re~ardin~ PD-178 Site Plans
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I am in receipt of your December 16, 1999, correspondence suggesting an error in our
zoning processing procedures. Apparently, you had not been directed to the specifies of
Planned Development District 178. Enclosed, for your edification, is a copy of a
pertinent element of that PD dearly stating that the Planning Commission and City
Council will hold a "... public hearing..." prior to approval of a Detail Site Plan.
On December 16t~ the Planning Commission conducted its required public hearing and
continued the eases in question until its January 20, 2000, meeting.
If you have questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Incidentally, the fax number you used to contact me is also in error. Our number is (972)
304-7092. ~
Yours truly,~
I~ircctc(r of Planning and Community Services
ttachment
Cc: Jim Witt
Bob Hager (by fax 214/965-0010)
J. David Dodd, III (by fax 214/965-0010)
Glen Hinckley (by fax 972/991-7500)
SECTION 2. That the ~.,operty shall be developed and used only in accordance with the
" following development conditions and the Conceptual Plan, Landscape Plan, Access Road Plan,
and Development Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibits "B", "C', "D', and "E", respectively:
A. Except as modified herein the property shall be used and developed in
accordance with "C" Commercial District regulations.
.!
B. No building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any
portion of the property until a Detail Site Plan is approved after public hearing by City
Council and Planning and Zoning Commission.
C. Minimum Size of Yards: Refer to the provisions of Exhibit "E'.
D. Access to Denton Tap Road shall be as generally set forth in Exhibit "B"
(Conceptual Site Plan).
E. Proposed Town Center West Boulevard right-of-way and ten (10') foot
sidewalk and utility easement as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be conveyed to the
City by separate instrmnent prior to the issuance of a building permit, plat approval or
Certificate of Occupancy for any portion of the property. Town Center West Boulevard as
shown on the conceptual plan shall be designed and constructed by the City at City cost,
provided the owner has dedicated the necessary right-of-way to the City.
F. The City shall, during the cohstmction of Town Center West Boulevard,
construct a sido~valk at City cost within the ten (10') foot utility easement as shown on the
conceptual plan (Exhinit "B"), provided the owner has dedicated the necessary easement to
the City. Landscape provisigus will be consistent with PD-178, 3-lA
2 SS2665{
· ' ~ec-ZO-lOlO 0S:48N Froe-WlNSTL iECHI~$T & ¥1NICI(/I *Z14-741-S~,. T-GOO P.OOZ/OOZ F-SOl
Dcccm~r 20, i
P~k~y Blvd.
Wi~h rcs~ m yo~ ~c~ 17 le~er, you ~e co.oct
publi~ hc~ng on ~ dc~l~d sitc p]~ applicmion.
~o~ oa ~hc si~ pl~ ~mpl~ wkh e~s~ng zoO8 md ~erefo~ ~e not ~t iss~ e~ ~s ~me. you for your cl~yin~ ~ mawr for ~e ~ 20, 2000 P&Z agenda.
If you ha~c ~y q~sdo~ reg~n~ ~s m~,
Siac~ely yo~,
Bob Ha8~ (vis f~ ~14/96S-001o)
Glen H~c~y (vie f~
Coppell, Texas 75019
972-462-0022
The City With A Beautiful Future
P.O. BOX 478
COPPELL. TEXAS 75019
December 21, 1999
Mr. Arthur J. Anderson, Esq.
Winstead Sechrest & Minick
5400 Renaissance Tower
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270-2199
RE: PD-178 Detail Site Plan Reauirements
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Thank you for agreeing that a public hearing is required before any development can
occur on the above-referenced site.
To further clarify our position, once a Concept Plan has been accepted, a Detailed Site
Plan must be approved through the public hearing process. By Zoning Ordinance
definition, a public hearing requires written notice.
As stated in my earlier correspondence, the Planning Commission on January 20, 2000,
will hear this case. By reviewing staff comments, one can easily see that conformance to
our development regulations would result in a favorable review. Without conforming to
these standards, however, we cannot endorse this project.
Incidentally, I again advise you that an incorrect fax number was used to convey your
December 20th correspondence. '~
If you haqe any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Barring that, we will discuss this matter in'detail on January 20th.
:m{s truly,
7
Gaw L. Sieb, A.I..r.
Di ?ctor of Planning and Community Services
Attachment ~
Cc: Jim Witt
Bob Hager (by fax 214/965-0010)
Glen Hinckley (by fax 972/991-7500)
Robert E. Hagcr,
Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hagcr & Smith
S00 N. Akard, #1500
Dallas, 'IX 75201
Re: Town Ccnt~,~' W~st Retail & Children's Courtyard Project
D~ar Bob:
Thank you for arranging and attending thc January ! 1 meeting in Coppeli which included
L'Ken Oriffu~ Bill And~.~,n, l lincklcy Mills. to confirm the
Alert
and
Jim
#~his
letter
is
reached between all o£thc pnrties, in preparation for {he lanuary 20 Platming & Zoning
Commission meeting.
I understand tha! the det.',iled site pleas that have been pi'uviously submitted 1o the City of
Coppell by the owner on this project are now acceptablo lo the City staffand p|annin~ Director and
a recommendation [bt approval will be made to the members of the Planning & Zoning Commission
with the adoption of the Following changes suggested by the CRy engineering department. Planning
Dir~tor ami City Attorncy, which chauges ate acceptable to the property owner:
I. Thc curb cui ibr the Children's Courtyard shah be modified'to accommodate two (2)
separate curb cut opeuings and ~im Mills of the Children's Courtyard shall provide
historicaJ trat~tic peak time dam to thc City caginccrin8 deparUnent.
2. ;rh¢ landscape issue has been reso{ved by moving thc retail building footprint north
seven feet (?')to provide a landscape buffer ou holh the north and south side of thc
retail building.'
Aside from the two items above, no other issues remain which prevenl file City stuff and
Planning Dircclor f~n supporting and making it recommendation to thc P&Z t'or approval.'
Il is our Further und¢,~tanding ttmt prior to lh¢ SaUuary 20 P&7. heating that: :
DALLAS I'(OLISTON AUSTIN MEXICO CITY
~nn ~ ~OSSY MOSH~ON¥ X~OaO0 8£g61£6gL6 ]TH 0g:0! IlL4 00/tI/I0
Robert E. Hagcr, Esq. ·
January 13, 2000
Page-2 :
" 1. ' The property owners~ engineer will provide rc~ised plnns confirming these changes
will be ',ldduct to thc P
· '2. The staff re'port preVioUsly prepnred.on 12/13199 will be r~nnoved from .the. P~t.Z
pa~ke~ nnd-a revised -,,'taft report pr~p'ared indicating s.talT approval shall be
: dis~but,xl in ~he P~.Z packets and a copy provided to my client.
.If you have nny questions or need addition',d inlbrnmtion, pl.c~, t: let mc know.
Sincerely,
Ardour J. And~on
A.~A/plg
cc: AI~ HincJclc~t (via fax 9'72/991;'/500)
GI~ Hin¢ldcy (via fi~x ~2/991-7500).
179'.18942-2
CO0~ 30SSV HOSHHoj~rv ~3(I~0~ 9£~6TC6Z£8 /'V~ OG:OT [8~[ O0/VY/TO
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: TOWN CENTER WEST, LOTS l&2, BLOCK A
PRELIMINARY PLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE: January 20, 2000 (originally heard on December 16, 1999 and
denied)
C.C. HEARING DATE: February 8, 2000
LOCATION: Southwest corner of N. Denton Tap Road and Town Center West
Boulevard.
SIZE OF AREA: Approximately 4.5 acres of property, being platted into two lots.
CURRENT ZONING: PD-C (Planned Development, Commercial)
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat approval for one 1.8-acre lot (for retail use), and one
2.6-acre lot (for day care and child development use).
APPLICANT: Prospective purchaser:
Realtex Ventures
Jim Mills
1825 Wimbleton Drive,//21000
Arlington, TX. 76017
(817) 784-9947
Fax: (817) 468-9521
HISTORY: This property has had no recent platting history although a street was
delineated on the north side of this parcel and a Conceptual Planned
Development was approved in May of 1999. Because of a request
to continue until January 20 the two development proposals
,which are reflected by this plat, the Planning Commission
denied this request on December 16,1999.
TRANSPORTATION: Denton Tap Road is a P6D, six-lane divided thoroughfare
contain6d 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:
Item #7
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: The Detailed PD which accompanies this application needs a great deal of
work before it is acceptable for review (see staff comments re: PD-178 R
and 178 RR). Landscaping requirements have not been followed,
stacking/fire lane issues are troublesome, and overall development concepts
need further refinement. That being the case, we can not accurately evaluate
this request as utility easements, fire lanes, building lines, etc. can not be
accurately located on the plat document until the use, building size, parking
requirements, landscape easements, etc. are known.
As stated in Case No. PD-178R, a redesign of that request is currently
underway. Depending upon that redesign, the submitted plat may or
may not be acceptable. Once staff has had an opportunity to review
that case, (supposedly before the public meeting of January 20, 2000)
we will be in a position to better recommend the appropriateness of this
plat.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends DENIAL of this application until the above listed issues
have been addressed, and we have had an oppommity to review a plat that
contains adequate and acceptable information meeting the City's minimum
development standards. Depending upon the outcome of PD-178 R and
R2, staff will either regommend approval or denial of this plat.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend denial of the request
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Preliminary Plat Document
2) Site Plan
3) Departmental Comments
Item #7