Loading...
Coppell Cross 1P-CS 981119 (2)CASE NO.: P & Z HEARING DATE: C.C. HEARING DATE: LOCATION: SIZE OF AREA: CURRENT ZONING: REQUEST: APPLICANT: CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT PD-173. COPPELL CROSSING November 19, 1998 December 8, 1998 Along the west side of MacArthur Blvd. and 361' north of Belfline Road. · 6.2 acres of property; proposing two buildings, one at 12,250 sq. ft., the other at 14,000 square feet. C (Commercial) PD-C (Planned Development, Commercial) Owner: Mitch Vexler Principal Growth, L.L.C. P. O. Box 293053 Lewisville, Tx. 75029 (940) 241-2353 Architect: David Cannon 6709 Creekside Lane Piano, Tx. 75023 (972) 618-8891 Fax: (972) 618-2409 HISTORY: TRANSPORTATION: This property was zoned for commercial use in the early 1990's. It is currently under development as a strip center with two restaurants having been approved by the Commission and Council in mid-1998. MacArthur is a P6D built as a divided four-lane facility in 110 feet of right-of-way. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North- existing retail uses; PD-154 C Sonic Drive-in South -railroad right-of-way; ~C", Commercial East - existing shopping center; UR", Retail West -TU Electric r.o.w.; UA", Agriculture Item # 6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: DISCUSSION: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for retail uses. The applicant is asking for a PD to modify our normally required landscaping requirements. This case is troublesome for a number of reasons. First, an approved 1998 site plan showed the area in question containing one building of 17,800 square feet which could meet our landscaping guidelines. Second, conversation concerning the retail center now under construction has uncovered a potential signage issue which needs rectification during this application discussion. Third, if the proposed plan is approved, the resultant ten foot reduction in perimeter landscaping would not meet standard landscaping requirements (although those requirements can be modified through the PD process). Forth, in discussions with the Building Official when a request for variance to the landscaping plan was being contemplated by the applicant, staff was led to believe that if the Board case was withdrawn and a PD application was submitted, the resultant landscaping to be provided would be in a place where the citizens of Coppell would benefit from its placement-- in front of the center. The plans submitted show landscaping behind the major strip center buildings. Fifth, when staff completed its initial review of this case it was discovered that the applicant had included land that was not owned by him. His revised plan shows a 12,250 sq. ft building (the original was 12,230 feet), and a 14,000 square foot building (the original was 12,230 feet), for a net increase in building size of over 2000 square feet. Finally, staff has asked for documentation that the owner of this property is willing to work with the subdivision to the west (The Hollows at Northlake Woodlands) to insure the fire lane access required of the Hollows developer can be extended through this property. This owner has alleged that he is not aware of that concern, and staff can not ascertain that the connection will be made. RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The planning staff is troubled by this application and several issues which remain unresolved. First, we have difficulty recommending approval of a plan not in conformance with an already approved site plan which met our landscaping requirements (see Attachment//1). Second, concerning signage, the applicant insists upon using a dark-toned raceway to mount Item # 6 his sign letters. That would be fine on his darker brick building facades, but on the building surfaces which are a buff color, the dark background will be offensive and the signs hard to read. We have asked the applicant to reconsider the raceway color on the lighter buildings with no success (see Attachments # 2 and 3). Therefore, since this is a PD and conditions can be clarified/added, staff would recommend that raceway colors close (if not identical) to the surface upon which they are placed be added to our PD conditions. Third, upon careful observation of the proposed modification to the approved site plan, the elimination of the ten foot green space results in a vast area of concrete with no landscape relief. Forth, the applicant argues that he is providing the proper amount of landscaping, he just wants to rearrange it. From our perspective, the rearrangement is not in the best interests of the citizens of this community. Fifth, this applicant is having difficulty meeting the requirements of the landscaping guidelines because he wishes to over build this site. By his actions to increase the size of his buildings rather than provide more landscaping speaks of his desire to maximize the buildable area of this site at the expense of more aesthetic considerations. Finally, the comment about not knowing the location of the planned fire lane easement is contradicted by the attached zoning reply form from his adjacent property owner (see Attachment #4). However, where it should be located relative to this property is well taken and suggests that additional dialogue needs to be undertaken by the two adjacent property owners. Taking all these issues into consideration, and based upon the concern staff has with this proposal, we must recommend denial of the application, and clarification regarding the raceway colors. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Recommend approval of the request 2) Recommend disapproval of the request ATTACHMENTS: 1) 1998 Site Plan Site Plan 2) Staff letter to applicant regarding raceway color 3) Applicant response to Attachment g2 4) Adjacent property owner's zoning reply form 5) Applicant Site, Landscape, Paving, Irrigation Plan 6) Departmental Comments (Fire and Engineering) Item # 6 The City With A Beautiful Future P.O. BOX 478 COPPELL, TEXAS 75019 P.O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 972-462-OO22 October 23, 1998 Ms. Catherine Vexler Mockingbird Management 940-241-2352 Dear Ms. Vexler: re: Channel Letter Sign Raceways, Coppell Crossing I looked at the signs on your project at 10009 MacArthur in Valley Ranch and agree that the bronze raceways are acceptable in that application. They are scarcely noticeable. The reason they are inconspicuous is that the brick wall upon which they are attached, while not bronze, has the same amount of darkness to it as the bronze. To illustrate what I mean, the raceway behind the Me N Ed's Pizza sign is closer in color to the red brick, but not dark enough, and therefore more noticeable. So, I agree that an exact color match is unnecessary, provided that a raceway is inconspicuous against its background...not as good as individually mounted channel letters like on the Mobil station next door to Me N Ed's, but good enough. However, at Coppell Commons you will have an altogether different look if you use bronze raceways against a light-colored brick and a bone white EFIS. I don't think you will like it. Therefore, I suggest that you consult your architect, James Boyter, or David Cannon, and perhaps Marvin Utter at Piano Signs. There may be a factory finish that you could use against the brick that would tend to be unnoticeable. I am sure that there must be a white that you could use against the bone white of the EFIS. If you would feel more comfortable having the raceway match the letter casings, I should imagine that letter casings come in the same factory finishes as the raceways. I am also seeking other opinions. I have asked the vice chairman of the Planning Commission, who is an architect, and Gary Sieb (my boss) to look at the Valley Ranch signs and tell me what they think. I hope that you will understand that my interest is in your achieving the best result for whatever dollars are spent and that details often make or break a project. Sincerely, Assistant Director of Planning and Community ServiCes Mockingbird Management Company P.O. Box 293053 Lewisville, TX. 75029-3053 940-241-2353 fax 940-241-2352 City of Cop~ell P.O. Box 476 Coppdl, TX. 75019 Re: Channel Letter Sign Raceways, Coppell Crossing Dear Mr. VilXanen: I reviewed your letter of October 23, 1998 and sent a copy to David Carmen for his comments. My conclusion over this situation is tl~t the bronze raceways need to remain as par~ of the sign requirements for the followin$ reasons: 1. In your letter you addressed the fact that the bronze ~tceway will be more visible on the stucco portion of thc facade. This is true, however trying to keep with the City's request that the majority of thc signage be ivory in color means that the signs would be hard to sec against the stucco. The bronze raceway will help mininfiz¢ this problem. 2. Mr. Vexler asrccd to try to work with thc City rega~din§ the color of the signs, however I am sure that if you check with the City's attorney you will fred that the City of Coppell does not have any deed res~ictions on the property nor does it have the right to take away the Landlord's or the Tenant's First Amendment Rights. I already have one tenant who is very unhappy with both the City and Mockingbird Management Company because thc/r sign color is their logo. For the record, 1 will try to maintain the ivory color dismissed however, I w/ll not loo~e a tenant to a requirement th/s ks not legal, binding, or decided by a committee of people that is not a formally recogn/zed body w/thin the City of Coppell, on th/.s property. 3. As I am hying to maintain some consistency with the ivory signage, I would also like to maintain consistency with the ~ceways. Anodized bronze raceways are standard. Painted raceways are possible however the colors would change from sign company to sign company and thus the colors of thc raceways would be different. 4. Concera/ng your last paragraph, ! appreciate your position that you and the City only want first quality developments. I sat in the Council meeting with Mr. Vcxler and I remember hun clearly stating &at Coppell Crossing would be a first ra~e development. As can be scen on site, it is the best looking center in the vicinity with many more arch/tectural features than its neighbors. Its cost to comlmct, due to the requirements of the City of Coppell, was astronomical, as compared to numerous properties that we l~ve built during the past several years. I can assure you tl~t Mock-mgb/rd Management Company only develops quahty projects, and m addition, as you have seen from our co~porate brochure, we have th6 track record to prove it. We have put thousands of hours of tiwe into the design, /r~lementation, consLeuction, and leasing of tiffs project and no deta/l/s left to chance. Wc nra more than willing to 1/stun to any suggestion, however please understand that Mocki~b/rd Management Company cmploys state licensed professional architects, engineers, atWmeys, accountants, and ,Mr. Vexler and as a cohasivc development team they are very/rnpressiv¢. Please remember that there are many other components to the overall project such as thc pads under contract to Btuger King and Taco Cabana, the cons~uctiou of the buildings on Lot 2 and the eventual construct/o~ of Lot 5, and they will also have raceways ~hat a~ aaodizcd bzonzo. It is tho oaly way to ko,~ consistr~u¢¥ amon~ all tho v~dors fl~at ! will be doaling with. TIusting r~ above to be satisfactory, I red,lain Project Ms~g~r ~cm~nt Company PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: ~ COU ~CIL MEETING: REPLY FOR THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION cAs NO.: PD=173. COPPF, I,I, CROgS'ING The City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission would likc to rcceive your comments on this case in order that it may make a better informed recommendation to the City Council. ff you desire to express an opinion, please complete this reply form and return it to the following', address by the date of the Public Hearing: City Of Col~ll plnnn~n8 & Zonln~ 12~partment P.O. ~x 478 Cop~ll, ~ 75019 This reply form in no way affects your right to at~end the Public Hearing, and we encourage all interested parties to attend and comment if they wish. If you have any questions l:~inin~ to the case, please call the Planning Department at 304- 3677. () () My comments are as follows: I am in favor of this plan. I am opposed to this plan. I am undecided about this plan. $isnature: Address: Phone//: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMI~EE ITEM: DRC DATE: CONTACT: COMMENT STA TI]S: FIRE PREVENTION COPPF. I]~ CROSSINGS OCTOBER 29, 1998 TRA ViS CRUMP, FIRE MARSHAl. COMMENTS ]~TNAL Minimum f'u'e lane inside radius is 30 feet. Minimum outside radius is 54 feet. Fire hydrants to be spaced on a maximum 300 feet on center along the fh'e lanes. Fire lanes to be 'platted as easements. OCT ~ ~ Igg8 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ENGINEERING COMMENTS ITEM: PD-173, Coppell Crossings. a zoning change request from "C" to "PD-C." to create a single commercial planned development to include two existing retail i buildings totaling 21,000 square feet and the development of two additional 12,230 square foot o.07ce/warehouse facilities on ~2 acres of property, located along the west side of Mac,4rthur Blva~ And 361' north of Beltline Road, at the request of David Cannon and Associates. DRC DATE: October 29, 1998 and November 5, 1998 CONTACT: Mike Martin, P.E., Assistant City Engineer (972-304-3679) COMMENT STATUS: PRELIM'~AR Y ',/ F1NA L R-g-lzI-C~gO 1) ShOw the location of the fire lane acc. ess point proposed to come from the west from The Hollows at Northlake Woodlands as required by the City's Fire Marshal. 2) Impact fees will be required.