Loading...
PD114R-AG010327 ~ ~ , ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 27, 2001 ITEM ITEM CAPTION: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of the Case No. PD-114R, zoning change request from PD-114-SF-7 (Planned Development-114, Single Family-7) and SF-12 (Single Family-12) to PD-114R (Planned Development-114R, Residential/Rest Home/Nursing Home), to allow the development of a Retirement Community on approximately 50.17 acres of property located along the south side of Sandy Lake Road, 1200' east of MacArthur Boulevard. APPROVED BY SUBMITTED BY: GaryL. Sieb CiTY COUNCIL TITLE: Director of Planning and Community Services STAFF COMMENTS: D kTE Date of P&Z Meeting: February 15, 2001 10 e.,~tl~'I Decision of P&Z Commission: Approved (6-0) with Commissioners McGahey, McCaffrey, Halsey, Clark, Kittrell and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. Approval is recommended, subject to the following conditions: O The City and applicant agree to moving the ground storage facility to the location shown on the site plan. (This condition is currently being pursued by both parties.) (~ Star Leaf Street be extended to Sandy Lake Road subsequent to the land swap between the applicant and the Cit)~ at~d t~ k'~ '~'~-'~d ls~fo~x, ~,L~ OO :~ i~atd fot~ i~he~ T-¥o D~v~'.t~-.u~m. (We understand you have agreed to this condition.) (See Applicant's letter of February 19th.) 3. Turn around at each entrance be designed so a vehicle can maneuver around the opening and re-enter the traveled lane without any back up movements. (You have agreed to this condition, as well as reducing the width of the access ways to no greater than a 2'1 foot width.) Condition Met 4.The guard gate along Sandy Lake Road be relocated relative to turn around redesign. (You have met this condition.) Condition Met a. nd 0Provide at least one parking space for each unit constructed in this development. -L~tou nave agreea to this condition and will provide staff with Phase I and Phase II p, arkin~, sp:tqe counts prior to khc City Council te th ee. vta~.~'h~, on't'in ~nt lan ..V-o¢ hearing.) (See Applicant's let rofFebruarv 19 .) ~._, -a~-- ~ n~-/I-'a~"~' ~ P 6. Required landscaping be included in the remote park:n~,"llot east ~f Star [ea~eet unless deemed unacceptable during flood plain review. (This condition has been met.) Condition Met 7. Provide at least one loading space of 15 by 30 foet; and show appropriate plans/submittals. Condition Met Lower all buildings to a maximum height of 3 stories, not to excoed 54 feet. Condition Met Reduce overall density by 25-30 ,.ak~is. Sit AjjliJc~.t'= 't;ttet 8f F,~:.~,.. 1,gP. j ~,, 10. The 13 acres labeled "linear park" on the east side of this development be retained and maintained by the applicant with a 20 foot north south hike/bike trail easement provided to the City. (This condition has been met= Condition Met DIR. INITIALS: ~5 -FIN. REVIEW.~ CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Agenda Request Form - Revised 5/00 Document Name: ,~PD 114R ,~ ~ x s CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 27, 2001 ITEM t-,~, ~o~& ~ ~c8 ~itt ~ ~o~ upon PI~ ~.~.'~ mn~kr rel~i~ ~'land~.g, ~r - x'.'~:_ ~ ,' n~i~g p~il~l tn q~n~y l.ake Road (~ ~ Ch~ge b~ilding materials from stucco ~d stone to brick ~d stone ~d revise the brick color Abide by Dep~menml comments. (Engineering ~d Leis~e Sen'ices). ~* ~r*h~ $1 ]~&~u 3~dxid ai~rirStion fig. {~ Ae~a'~ k:~i ~' F~b. ~ ~th.) ,..~PD114R page 2 of 2 CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE NO.: PD-114R, ST. JOSEPH VILLAGE Note: The Planning Commission heard this case on January 18, 2001 and continued it to February 15, 2001. The following commentary (shown in bold type) is additional information not presented at the January hearing. P&ZHEARINGDATE: January 18, 2001 (Continued by Planning Commission until February 15, 2001) C.C. HEARING DATE: February 13, 2001 (To be rescheduled after Commission action, possibly March 6, 2001) LOCATION: Along the south side of Sandy Lake Road, 1,200 feet east of MacArthur Boulevard. SIZE OF AREA: Approximately 50.17 acres of which 13.48 acres is in flood plain and 2 acres is a public water storage facility. CURRENT ZONING: PD-114-SF-7 (Planned Development- 114, Single Family-7), and SF- 12. REQUEST: PD-114R (Planned Development-114R, Residential/RestHome,q'qursing Home) to include 449 units (75 cottages, 260 retirement units, 78 assisted living units, 36 skilled nursing units) and a chapel. (Revised plans show 439 units with 250 vs. 260 original retirement units). APPLICANT: St. Joseph Village, Inc. Architect: Aguirre Corp. c/o Monsignor Killian Broderick Jim Phillips 180 Samuel Blvd. 12700 Park Central, 15th Floor Coppell, Texas, 75019 Dallas, Texas (972) 241-1272 (Joe Dingman) (972) 789-2645 Fax (972) 241-1214 Fax (972) 788-1583 HISTORY: This property was rezoned from MF-1 to PD SF-7 in 1990. The ordinance approving the zoning change did not reach Council until February of 1992. On that date City Council denied passage of the ordinance, but on March 10 reconsidered the case and passed the zoning. At that time 139 single-family Item #4 residences were proposed on 48 acres of this parcel. That development did not occur, and today the property remains vacant. (This case was continued from January 18 until February 15 because Planning Commission requested the applicant address several issues not covered in the January public hearing) TRANSPORTATION: Sandy Lake Road is proposed to be a C4D/6 4 lane divided roadway, contained within a 110 foot fight of way. Star Leaf is proposed to be 33 feet wide through this area within a 55 foot right of way. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North- scattered single family housing and vacant land; SF-12 South - MacArthur Park and vacant; LI, O and SF-7 East - TXU easements and single-family residences; A and SF~7 West - church, school, townhouses, multi-family and shopping center; SF-7, PD-97R, MF-2, PD-182 TH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan show's the property as suitable for residential medium density (4-12 units per acre) single family uses. DISCUSSION: There are a number of observations to be made regarding this request. On the one hand, we are very supportive of what is proposed here in terms of land use. On the other hand, circulation, parking, and density' as related to the overall nature of the proposed use generates some concerns that must be addressed if we are to achieve the highest and best use for this property. In addition, the relationship of this project to the development around it relative to scale, intensity of development, compatibility of architectural style/building material, and provision of ancillary uses must be addressed if this project is to result in a positive addition to the community. Site Plan The overall site plan proposes 449 units; 197 being constructed in Phase One, 252 in Phase Two. A mix of residential types ranging from 39 attached single-family residences, 48 assisted living, 110 retirement living apartments and an 8,400 square foot chapel are proposed in Phase One (see Exhibit SD-8). Phase Two will consist of 36 cottages, 30 assisted living, 150 retirement living, and 36 skilled nursing units resulting in the 449 dwellings specified above. (The revised mix is 439 units with 140 vs. 150 retirement units in Phase Two) Item The cottages are attached, 2 bedroom, 2 bath, one car garage units at a minimum. Several have two car garages and 2 and one-half baths. They are showing 20 foot rather than 25 foot front yard setbacks for the cottages, citing a "more cozy feeling" as a reason for the reduction. Although debatable, and a greater setback could assist in addressing the parking issue (see below) this is not a major fallacy of the plan. They are all one story, typically marketed to the healthy' elderly in an average age bracket between 77 and 82. The assisted living product is composed of studio, one bedroom and companion apartment units directed to the more frail elderly (average ages 80-85). The 110 retirement living units are 1, 2, and 3 bedroom products in an apartment building targeting the same age bracket as the cottages. There is also a skilled nursing element composed of 36 units targeted to bed-ridden patients that would be built during Phase Two construction. The project is proposed to be secured with a 6 foot high brick/stone/stucco fence surrounding the property. Entry to the complex would be by a security device (card, key, punch pad, etc.) and services to be provided include dining, health, housekeeping, laundry, maintenance, ground keeping and a host of other senior living requirements. There is an abundance of open space to encourage walking, and a 8,400 square foot chapel for worship. Finally, they' are showing a statue/sign on sheet SD-7 that needs more detail before we can address any concerns with that proposal. Because of the complexity of this request, and the impact it can have on the community, we have divided our analysis into a series of component parts listed below. Land Use The proposed residential housing, rest home and nursing facility is classified as a residential use, and as such, is compatible--from a land use perspective--with the Comprehensive Master Plan. As indicated under the HISTORY section of this report, the existing use for 139 dwelling units is currently in compliance with the Master Plan also. A major difference is, of course, the intensity of development as well as the different uses now proposed. We go from single-family detached units on individually platted lots, to four different housing types, all units are attached, a four-story element has been introduced into the equation, and a chapel of some significance has been added. In effect, a more "commercial" development will result with the granting of this proposal. In addition, and also related to land use is the potential "swapping" of land between the City and St. Joseph's. The municipality currently has a ground storage facility located on 2 acres of land immediately south of Sandy Lake Road, adjacent to this request and the TXU easement on the east side of this proposal. We are currently negotiating with St. Joseph's to move our storage facility to the Item #4 south side of their property, thus allowing them more public exposure along Sandy Lake Road and removing the City's facility to the interior of this property. Circulation Movement of traffic into this project and between MacArthur Blvd. and Sandy Lake Road will be accommodated by the extension of Star Leaf Street between these two major arteries. As shown, Star Leaf is projected to be a 33 foot wide street contained within a 55 foot r.o.w. Initially, Star Leaf will end short of Sandy Lake Road as the City and the applicant work out a land swap to physically move our ground storage facility to an area south of this development (see comments under Land Use section of this report). Once the land exchange has been accomplished, Star Leaf can be extended to Sandy Lake and that will be accomplished in Phase Two of this plan. As an aside, the City of Irving has a 54 inch water line located in the Phase Two development area. It goes without saying that no structure can be built over that easement and Phase Two development must honor that prohibition. Being a secured development, two entry gates are shown on the St. Joseph's site plan allowing access into the project only by a security device. The applicant was cautioned that security gates needed to be located so the stacking of vehicles waiting to enter the development would not obstruct the movement of traffic on dedicated streets. Also, tm-around areas need to be provided at each secured entrance so vehicles which erroneously enter these areas can return to the street with a minimum of delay, movement, and inconvenience. Staff has suggested a mm around at each entrance be designed so that a vehicle can maneuver around the opening and re-enter the traveled lane without any backing-up or reverse movements. (See additional staff comments in Recommendations Section). Parkin~ Of concern to staff is the number of parking spaces being shown on the submitted plan. If this were a typical apartment project, something in excess of 1184 parking spaces would be required by code. This submittal is suggesting 311 spaces. Although the applicant justifies his parking figure on sheet SD-l, we are concerned that 311 spaces will not be sufficient. Staff is not suggesting that the entire 1184 code required spaces be provided, and (to a degree) we accept that a retirement community has a lesser demand for parking. However, on personal observation of a project this applicant asked us to observe in St. Louis, MO., it was our assessment that not enough parking was being provided. In the case before you, the applicant has suggested increasing the St. Louis parking by 15%-- to the 311 space total--but we are uncomfortable with that figure. If 449 units are to be built here, it just makes sense that at least one parking space for each unit be provided. We accept the fact that as residents age, less driving (and subsequently Item/t4 demand for parking) results. However, with a chapel, 24 hour staffing for portions of this facility, guests, relatives and family visiting at various times, and a dining area which promotes visitors, the one space per unit is a good guideline. Also to be considered is what happens to this project if it fails as proposed? Does it revert to a general apartment project? And if so, how do we accommodate parking at that time? (See Recommendations Section) The plan proposes a 46 space parking lot on the ease side of the extension of Star Leaf Street. The parking lot is shown to be in flood plain. This remote parking would be allowed provided no change to existing grades in the flood plain are made. A complication to providing this lot is the fact that the Zoning Ordinance requires all parking lots to be landscaped. Running counter to that requirement is the fact that our flood plain standards suggest no planting of landscape material in that same area. Sooo, the applicant is faced v~Sth a "Catch 22" situation. It would be our suggestion that landscaping be included on the applicant's plan (to conform to the Zoning requirements) and if not allowed, a special condition of the PD could eliminate it. (The applicant has provided additional landscaping as shown on Attachment #5.) Although not generally required in a residential project, the intensity of this development should warrant at least one loading space, typically 15 by 30 feet. Because dining service will be provided to residents, and, we understand residents will use their own furniture, loading spaces would seem a necessity for food, furniture, and other delivery items. (Note: Not shown on revised plan, but agreed to by applicant). The proposal also shows a stamped concrete entry way from Sandy Lake Road. Although stamped concrete can be provided on private property, brick pavers are required within the public fight of way as provided in the Streetscape Plan. The applicant is aware of this condition and agrees to this requirement. Density In addition to our parking concern is the density of this project. Today 139 units have been approved for this property. There are 449 units proposed here. That is over three times what is currently allowed. This increase in density coupled with older citizens living in a four story building give us pause to question whether such a living environment promotes the health and safety of residents. By lowering the building to three stories, and a subsequent reduction in density., parking requirements fall, and our concern with seniors living in mid-rise buildings is diminished. A reduction of 25-30 units could be accomplished by lowering the height of the buildings. (See Recommendations Section) Landscal~in~ Item For the most part, the landscaping plan meets our requirements. There is no tree retribution required as all trees on-site are unprotected varieties. The applicant is providing over 1400 caliper inches of new trees as the project develops, along with grass, shrubs and seasonal color. We will not accept the 13 acres of floodplain as City owned open space (labeled "linear park" on the east side of the development), so a property owners association established to sustain plant material on the main site will need to maintain this land area also. As indicated by the attached memo from Leisure Services, we would be interested in a 20 foot easement running north-south through this property for future consideration as a hike/bike trail. (The revised plan, Sheet SD-2, includes this easement). Although the plan shows an area south of and adjacent to Sandy Lake Road being utilized as a water body, more information is needed regarding its finished appearance. For example, is this a concrete lined channel? Does it contain any water features such as waterfalls or fountains? Because Sandy Lake Road is a primary image zone, it is very important that development of the water body complement this project and the city at large. (See Recommendations Section). Buildin~ Perhaps the major difficulty staff has with this project is the scale, massing, height, and materials proposed to build this complex. There is not another four story residential building in the City of Coppell. Not only do we feel the four story structure is out of scale with the overall communi~, a potential safety issue further troubles us if fire were to occur in this building, particularly with the difficulty of removing older residents from the upper levels of the building. By decreasing height, scale and massing of the project would be favorably affected. In addition to reducing the size of the retirement and assisted living building, the overall complex would be more compatible with the surrounding community. As an added benefit of reducing the height of this structure, density would be reduced, and parking requirements suggested by staff would be lowered. Another benefit of height reduction would result in the chapel being the tallest building on site, thus becoming a more dominant feature of the overall development. We commend the architect for the detail shown in the building elevations, and particularly the wall and parking structure screening elements. The cottage design is well done and the two and three story buildings have a certain degree of design compatibility. Our major criticism relates to building materials chosen to express the design. At the outset of our discussion with this applicant several months ago, staff made it very clear a stucco and mission-type building materials list was not encouraged Item g4 in Coppell. Indeed, when staff visited St. Louis, the Cape Albeon project (the one the applicant has used for parking comparisons on exhibit SD-l) proved to be a wood frame project, which of course is not allowed in Coppell. The second site we visited was a wonderful design of 100% masonry, reflected true old word architecture, included underground parking, a dark red brick color pallet, nice details everywhere even including chimney design and was just a first class proposal. Our tour guides repeatedly stated that the Coppell project would more closely emulate the second site. What we have here however, is a stucco product that is not typically allowed in Coppell, mission-type building materials for an area of Texas that was not influenced by the missions of South Texas/Mexico and a massing of buildings which will have a great influence on the architectural impressions of this City. Having noted staff concerns, the first submission of application drawings had an alternative materials list that included brick in place of the stucco product. Although staff commented that the brick was a bit light colored based upon community standards, nonetheless it was included. When the second submittal arrived, however, the alternate had been removed from consideration. It is staff opinion that the brick and stone faqade is far superior to the stucco-type building now being proposed. In addition, if the proposed stucco type finish is not true stucco additional problems regarding maintenance, appearance and quality of construction will result. With such a massive development located along one of our most heavily traveled thoroughfares, coupled with the fact that Sandy Lake Road is a primary, image zone, the applicant needs to seriously re-evaluate his building material choice. After the January public hearing, the applicant redesigned this project at the suggestion of the Planning Commission. The majority of stucco building material has been replaced by brick, the remainder with EFIS, and the mission-type style has been slightly modified. Of continuing concern to staff is the light colored brick chosen for this project, and the final design modifications to the buildings. A preliminary concept (see Attachment #6) appears more in line with the Commission's suggestions, and we continue to be concerned with the "hot" appearance of the light colored brick, especially with the height and massiveness of this proposal. As indicated under the History section of this report, Planning Commission continued this case until the February hearing to allow the applicant to address several issues needing clarification (see attached letter to Monsignor Broderick dated January 19, 2001). Those issues included density, building materials (as indicated above), landscaping, maneuvering of vehicles at the entrance gates, and height, among others. Revised drawings have been submitted, and our additional comments are based upon conditions still needing to be addressed as well as progress on those for which some activity has occurred. Item #4 RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: At introduction of this staff report, we stated a conditional support of this request. There are several positive elements of this concept; there are some alterations we feel need to be made to make this an outstanding addition to the fabric of Coppell. Staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: 1. The City and applicant agree to moving the ground storage facility to the location shown on the site plan. We are currently moving forward on this proposal. 2. Star Leaf Street be extended to Sandy Lake Road subsequent to the land swap between the applicant and the City, and to be opened before any CO is issued for Phase Two development. The applicant agrees to this condition. 3. Turn-around at each entrance be designed so a vehicle can maneuver around the opening and re-enter the traveled lane without any back-up movements. The main entrance relative to access has been re-designed to the City's satisfaction. However, the width of this entrance scales at approximately 40 feet per side. The maximum width of entry/exit ways is 24 feet in each direction, and a revised exhibit needs to be submitted before the Council meeting. The secondary entrance along Star Leaf is satisfactory as shown on the attached 8 % by 11 inch drawing (Attachment #4 and 4'). 4. The guard gate along Sandy Lake Road be relocated relative to turn-around redesign. This condition has been met. 5. Provide at least one parking space for each unit constructed in this development. During the January 18th public hearing the applicant stated parking provided on site (the 311 spaces) did not include garage parking for the 75 cottages being proposed. In reviewing the original plans it appears 96 parking spaces will be included with cottage construction (54 one-garage units, and 21 two-garage units), making a grand total of 407 parking spaces. This figure needs to be verified by the applicant as well as stating total parking spaces being provided in Phase One and Phase Two. 6. Required landscaping be included in the remote parking lot east of Star Leaf Street unless deemed unacceptable during flood plain review. Now shown, see Attachment #5. Item #4 7. Provide at least one loading space of 15 by 30 feet. Not dimensioned, although we understand the applicant will provide this space between the assisted and retirement living units. 8. Lower all buildings to a maximum height of 3 stories, not to exceed 50-54 feet. The overall plan now shows a three story building, with the exception of the chapel (see Revised Sheets 11 and 15). The maximum height of the residential structures is 55 feet, a reduction from the four- story height of approximately 5 feet. As a general rule, we defme a story as 12 feet in the Zoning Ordinance with additional height allowed for roof members. Using that guideline, these are unusually tall three- story structures. Additional comments from the applicant relative to the height as it relates to the design of the units and the overall appearance of this project needs to be pursued at the public meeting. 9. Reduce overall density by 25-30 units. The applicant has indicated he has reduced the density by 10 units. This density is over the maximum outlined in the Comprehensive Master Plan. 10. The 13 acres labeled "linear park" on the east side of this development be retained and maintained by the applicant with a 20 foot north-south hike/bike trail easement provided to the City. Revised sheet SD-2 shows this easement. 11. Provide a detailed site plan for the water body running parallel to Sandy Lake Road. The revised plan (sheets SD-6A and B) shows additional landscaping along Sandy Lake Road. It also indicates the existing water body running parallel to Sandy Lake will remain in its present configuration and appearance. Therefore, the rip-wrap and banks of the drainage area will retain their current status. 12. Change building materials from stucco and stone to brick and stone. The revisions basically show a brick and stone elevation (see Revised Sheets SD-11 and 15, although 15 may be further refined) with up to 20% EIFS material and a composition roof. Staff feels the preliminary redesign (see Attachment t/6) was more in line with what Planning Commission had suggested, as compared to their final design (also included on Attachment #6) as shown in more detail on Sheet SD-Il. The screening fence will be brick and stone (see sheet SD-6.1). 13. Provide additional details on the statue/signage shown on sheet SD-7. The statue/signage no longer shows on the development plans. 14. Abide by Departmental comments. (Engineering and Leisure Services). Item 15. Payment of the $1285/du parkland acquisition fee. It is our understanding the applicant is attempting to reach some compromise position regarding payment of this fee (a proportionate amount, fees based upon elderly use of park facilities, etc.). Their revised Sheet SD-1 suggests a one-time payment of $125,000 for furniture and fixtures for the Coppell Senior Center by the time the Center opens (most likely more than five years away). At any rate, the Planning Commission can not waive this fee and the fee condition must be forwarded to Council. Some additional comments are in order. As mentioned above, the applicant has attempted to address the concerns outlined in the January 19, 2001 letter. Brick has replaced the majority of the stucco material, and some redesign of the units has occurred. We are troubled by the brick color. Although EFIS is being used in place of the 20% non-masonry building material, and we would have preferred a different material, it is allowed. Revised height data has been provided, although the three story height seems to be a bit high. Some effort has been made toward "dressing up" the water body adjacent to Sandy Lake Road, although staff had the impression the banks of the channel would be addressed also. Some additional detail on how this area will look after development might be in order. Parking has been increased by counting the cottage garages. Staff recommends the parking data be broken down by phase. Our ingress-egress concerns have been addressed with the exception of the width of driveways along Sandy Lake Road. Those drives need to be reduced in width to no greater than 24 feet each side. Finally, and as a general comment, staff can support this proposal provided all the conditions sited above are complied with. ALTERNATIVES: 1) 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) Departmental Comments 2) St. Joseph development package (15 sheets including site plan, elevations, landscape plan, signage, proposed uses, floor plans, some details, etc.) Now 9 sheets. 3) Letter dated January 19, 2001 to Monsignor Broderick 4) Copy of revised Star Leaf Street turn around. 5) Landscaped parking lot 6) Elevation redesign Item #4 ;~7¢C --'A~< C.F:IN'TRA~ ~;R FLOOR 15 ,OALLA$ T=.XA2. 7525! =kX ~;'." 788 Februa~ 19, 2001 ~ ~ ~.~ ~.,.,~ ..~ ~ ~.~ ,~. Ga~ R~en dire~ dial 972-78~2698 Fax 972-78~9957 G;~en~agu~rre.com City of Cop~ll Planning Depa~ment 255 Parkway Blvd. Coppell, TX 75019 Attention: Gary Sieb Re: Case No. PD-114R, St. Joseph Villa Dear Mr. Sieb: My notes from the Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on February 15, 2001 indicate that the subject item was approved based on a motion that required the following throe alterations to our submission~ 1. Building height not to exceed 54 feet. 2. Additional landscaping (bushes) adja~nt to the np rap in the drainage ama on the north side of the p~o~y. 3 A more "muted" brick color be selected. Your letter of February 16, 2001 to St. Joseph Village. inc. CIO Monsignor Kilian Broderick addresses several issues wit~ which our development team is not in full agreement. These issues are: ITEM 2: We have agreed to build and dedicate Star Leaf Road from it's currant termination point to a point just south of the ci~ prope~y line as shown on our drawings. After the proposed land swap and affe~ the city moves its' existing equipment, we will e~end Star Leaf Road to Sandy Lake Road. We understand that a C.O will not be issued on Phase II of our project until this e~ension is complete. However, we believe that delaying the issuance of a C.O. should only occur if the Star Leaf Road e~ension is not complete due to our delay. If the city has not completed the removal of its' equipment, our C.O. should not be delayed. ITEM 5: Our submi~al shows a total of 407 par~ing spaces on the site. This total is made up of 311 spa~s for the retirement and assisted living buildings and 96 garages for the co, ages. Based on a total build out of 439 units, this parking ratio far exceeds the norm for similar facilibes across the count~. To help alleviate any remaining con.ms about this issue, ou~ development team agreed to provide a "one-to-one' ~tio in phase one of the project. This means that we will provide a total of 197 parking spa~s for the 197 units to ~ built in Phase I. We have not agreed to a "one-to-one" ratio for the entire s~e. Obviously, as responsible business people and mem~rs of our community, we would reconsider our plan prior to ~ginning the development of Phase II if Phase I parking exceeds expectations. FILE No. 084 0~/18 '93 19:07 [D:LANtERF~×6500 P~G£ 3 Mr. Gary Sieb City of Coppell February 19, 2001 Page 2 of 2 ITEM 9: In their initial report, the city planning staff anticipated a reduction of 25-30 units because we had agreed to reduce the facility from four to three stories. In fact, the height reduction only resulted in ten fewer units due to a re-alignment of some internal spaces. Therefore, our submitted total unit count stands at 439 versus the original 449. Maintaining this count is extremely important to the financial viability of this project. When specifically asked at the P&Z meeting, we declined to agree to the 25-30 unit reduction. ITEM 12: After the initial P&Z hearing, we re-designed the facility to try to meet the commission's desires. The resulting design Is 80% masonry. It appears that this submitted design change is acceptable, but that the P&Z Commission is still intent on dictating the brick color. The motion that was approved asked for a more "muted" brick color. We are evaluating optional bricks at this point. ITEM 14: We understand that the P&Z Commission does not have the authority to alter the park land acquisition fee and look forward to addressing our request tn the City Council. Per your direction, I have documented the aforementioned concerns so that you can have a clear understanding of our position prior to the presentation to the City Council on March 6, 2001. I believe that our actions to date, from working with city staff to find an alternative water tank site to agreeing to allow the new force main to be located on our property indicate a willingness to cooperate with the City. We look forward to working with the City to move this project forward. Sincerely, REcorporatlon Gary Roden President and COO GDRtldb Attachments h taa~.proJ~1030~,0099-00~Data~Clty of CoDpell.doc cc: Monsignor Kilian Broderick Joseph W. Dingman, Odon Realty Advisors Bruce Russell, St. Andrews Management Services Peter Winters, Aguirre Jim Phillips, Aguirre