CC approval on 5/9/00 AGENDA REQUEST FORM
~/'--~ ~" CITY COUNCIL MEETING: May 9, 2000 ITEM # ]
ITEM CAPTION:
PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD-185. Coppell Industrial Addition, zoning change
request from LI (Light Industrial) to PD-LI (Planned Development, Light Industrial), to allow a phased
development of 2 office/warehouse facilities totaling 1,900,000 square feet of space on approximately 100
acres of property located along the north side of W. Bethel Road and 50' east of N. Royal Lane.
:'--APPROL/ED
SUBMITTEDBY' G//~aryL. Sieb -~'~ C'-.1¥ COUNCIL
TITLE: { Director of Plannil~ and Community Services DATE .
STAFF COMML~_TS: ...... ~ ~.,Z:r'~'~A-~
Date of P&Z Meeting: April 20, 2000
Decision of P&Z Commission: Approved (6-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, Clark,
Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed.
Approval recommended, subject to the following conditions:
1) Prior to City Council consideration, a detailed elevation plan must be approved by staff which utilizes
techniques, other than painting, to tone down the vast length of the structures, e.g., add corners, reveals,
building landscaping and other architectural elements.
2) Signage shall comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, allowing for one (1) 120 square foot
sign straddling the common property lines between Lots 1 and 2 along Bethel Road. No other detached
signage shall be permitted within this Planned Development. (CONDITION MET)
3) All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view, subject to approval from the Fire Marshal.
4) The parking provided under this Planned Development shall be in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance
in ratio and in proportion to the use that is provided at thc time of the issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy, except that xvarehousing parlcing will bca minimum of one (1) space per 5,000 square feet of
floor area. (CONDITION MET)
5) Revise and elaborate PD Conditions to assure that the minimum required landscaping shall be met with
ultimate parking (per Zoning Ordinance requirements) or any other approved parking ratios in place.
(CONDITION MET)
6) Compliance with Department Comments.
7) Incorporation of the agreements reached in the letter to Marcie Diamond from Stephen M. Golding dated
April 19, 2000, into PD conditions, revised site plan or landscape plans, as appropriate. (CON. MET)
Staff recommends/,a4~.5?t.~l.
D R.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 2.-"99 Document Name: :~-PD 185ch
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO.: PD-185, COPPELL INDUSTRIAL
ADDITION
P & Z HEARING DATE: April 20, 2000
C.C. HEARING DATE: May 9, 2000
LOCATION: Along the north side of W. Bethel Road, 50' east of N. Royal
Lane.
SIZE OF AREA: Approximately 100 acres of property (actually 99.97 acres).
CURRENT ZONING: LI (Light Industrial)
REQUEST: PD-LI (Planned Developmem, Light Industrial) in two phases with
Phase One being a 600,000 square foot building with a 350,000
foot expansion; Phase Two being a 900,000 square foot building.
APPLICANT: Applicant: Architect:
Champion Parmers Meinhardt and Quintana
James Stewart David Meinhardt
15601 Dallas Pkwy. 14900 Landmark
Suite 100 Suite 650
Addison, TX. 75001 Dallas, TX. 75240
(972) 490-5600 (972) 980-8980
Fax: (972) 490-5599
HISTORY: There has been no recent development history on the subject
property.
TRANSPORTATION: Bethel Road at this location is projected to be a C4D, four-lane
divided thoroughfare contained within a 90 to 110 foot right of
way. Today it is a two-lane asphalt street, projected to be
improved no sooner than the next three to five years.
Item # 11
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- vacant, WagonWheel Park; LI Light Industrial
South - postal distribution center; LI, Light Industrial
East - vacant; LI, Light Industrial
West -vacant, sun dial; LI, Light Industrial
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for
light industrial and showroom uses.
DISCUSSION: This is a very confusing case in that the applicant shows several parking
schemes, is platting only a portion of the site yet proposing PD zoning
over the entire parcel, suggests an addition to the first building leaving
when that might occur open-ended. There are a number of inconsistencies
between this proposal, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and staff
observations that might warrant this case being reconsidered at a later date.
That said, the proposed development for this 100 acres meets the use
recommendation of the Comprehensive Master Plan, and we have no
concern with the use. Rather, staff has directed its review to the physical
aspects of the parcel. Of concern to us is the overall scale of this facility,
its impact upon the area, the appearance of the finished product, signage,
some questions regarding landscaping, and parking provisions.
What we have proposed here are two very large buildings--one of 600,000
feet, expandable to 950,000, and a second of potentially another 900,000
square feet. Being so large, their presence on the landscape will certainly
influence development potential for the surrounding properties. That
being the case, the architect needs to take pains to design structures that
offer elements de-emphasizing the shear size of this project. Breaking up
the fafade of a building that is a minimum 1200 feet long (expandable to
almost 1900 feet!) and at least 36 feet high should be required. For
example, the provision of "edges" and corners along the fafade will
visually shorten the length of the building. Providing additional
landscaping against the building, adding berms (especially along the north-
south axis), and introducing additional evergreen natural screening will
assist in reducing the mass of these buildings. Additional setbacks off
Bethel Road and Creekview Drive would also reduce the scale of these
enormous structures.
During deliberations with the architect he resisted these suggestions and
mentioned that he planned to use a "paint scheme" (whatever that means)
to de-emphasize the massiveness of these buildings. Although the
applicant has shown a detention area to handle the drainage requirements
as well as acting as a credit for his over-all landscaping requirement, we
would point out that the detention area is on a separately platted lot which
Item #11
would not normally be counted in determining overall landscaping
requirements. Because this is a PD, it can be considered here, however.
We have minor inconsistencies between the applicant's required
landscaping figures and ours (we calculated approximately 660-690,000
square feet of required landscaping, the applicant indicated 641,000 square
feet), but on a 100-acre site, the difference is not significant. Regarding
the detention pond, carefully planned plantings are required here so that
we do not end up with an unsightly, dry drainage bed in the summer
months when rains are minimal. Extensive screening from the public right
of way would assist in addressing this concern. Also, some discussion was
held regarding whether detention (a pond which is wet only during rainy
weather) or retention (a pond in the purest sense that's wet year round)
ponds were most desirable, and cost became an issue for the developer.
Signage for this zoning district allows a maximum size of 60 square feet.
The applicant has indicated he needs larger signs because of the
magnitude of the development, and is showing signage as great as 125
square feet. Staff feels the buildings themselves are going to more than
adequately advertise this project, and signs larger than allowed by code
are not warranted.
The applicant is proposing a parking standard that does not meet our
development requirements. He has included a number of examples of
projects in other locations he feels justifies his request. Staff can not
support this request, we have no assurance that the buildings will always
be leased to the same users, and we have found through hindsight (the
IBM center) that our industrial area seems to be requiring more parking,
not less.
Because of these concerns, it is difficult for staff to recommend this
request, and it should be taken under advisement. If, however, the
Planning Commission recommends approval, there are several conditions
which must be addressed.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
We feel this case needs to be taken under advisement until all our concerns
are adequately addressed. The applicant is reluctant to postpone the
hearing. That being the case, staff can only support this request if the
following conditions are met:
-a technique other than painting be used to tone down the vast
length of the structures, e.g., add corners, reveals, building
landscaping, and other architectural elements
-signage comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
Item # 11
-all roof-top mechanical equipment be screened from public view
-Zoning Ordinance parking requirements be met
-minimum required landscaping be met with ultimate parking in
place
-Departmental comments be complied with (Primarily Leisure
Services and Engineering)
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) Zoning Exhibit
2) Architects Letter, Parking Analysis, Lighting, Signage, Colored Elevations
3) Site Plan and Elevations
4) Concept Planting and Irrigation Plans
5) Site Parking Plan
6) Fully Parked Phase I and II Concept Planting Plan
7) Departmental Comments (Planning, Leisure Services, Engineering)
Item #11
April 21, 2000
TO: Marcie Diamond, Assistant Planning Director
FROM: Travis Cramp, Deputy Fire Chief'Tire Marshal~_~
SUBJECT: Parapet Walls
This memorandum is to follow up our conversation last night, April 20, 2000 concerning requiring parapet
walls on the Champion project.
Given the width of the buildings (approximately 500 feet), the peak of the buildings will be approximately
six feet higher than the exterior walls. Both of these buildings will have an ESFR f'tre sprinkler system
which requires a mechanical smoke/heat removal system. By code, these exhaust fans will be required to
be placed on the roof of the building. On buildings this size, between 80 and 90 fans will be required. In
order to screen these fans from public view as stated in your staff comments, a parapet wall would need to
be over six feet tall along the full length of the building. This height presents a serious safety problem for
firefighters. While the height would present access problems, the primary, concern would be egress from
the roof for f'Lrefighters. The parapets, as required by Planning Staff, would prevent f'trefighters from safely
exiting the roof, possibly trapping the firefighters on the roof.
It is the Fire Departments recommendation that the wording of the staff comments be modified to state that
"HVAC units shall be screened from public view on the North and South ends of the buildings". This re-
wording will effectively screen the larger air conditioning units from view and still leave the sides of the
structures open for safe access by the Fire Department.
If you need additional information or would like to discuss this further, please contact me at extension
3503.
Xc: Robert Kruse, Fire Chief
City of Coppell
Development Review Committee Comments
Planning Department
P.D.-185-LI COPPELL INDUSTRIAl. ADDITION
(CHAMPION PARTNERS)
North side of W. Bethel Road, East of N. Royal Lane
1. You may want to delay this case one month because of the number of concerns -
we have with this submittal including:
-a 1200 foot long industrial building (with possible expansion to 1900
feet) needs fa$ade articulation to break up the mass of the building.
-because of the size of these buildings and recognizing the Postal Facility
included additional setbacks from property lines, it would be prudent to
consider greater landscape setbacks along Bethel Road. We suggest 50
feet with berms and extensive landscaping (Note: the Minyards facility
has generated criticism for its minimal setbacks and landscaping along
Bethel Road). Also consider additional landscaping and setbacks along
Creekview Drive (not Road). Sections of both Bethel Road and
Creekview Drive landscaping proposals (width of landscaping, height of
trees and building, berm, etc.) needed
-for public hearing purposes, exhibits will need to be reduced to 8 1/2 x.
11 size. Combine sheets L1-01,02,03 to one reduced exhibit; same with
all other submittals. Try to get exhibits L1-01,02,03 on one 24.x36
sheet
-Truck parking areas must be totally screened from public r.o.w.,
generally by solid masonry screening walls (see Section 33 of Zoning:
ordinance)
-Zoning ordinance requires office parking at 1:300; warehousing at
1:1000. It is your responsibility to justify less stringent guidelines,
which will be difficult to do
-Clearly identify exhibit L1-03 (Perhaps L1.01 can show how it relates
to L1-01,02,03)
-Our initial calculations show required perimeter landscaping at 97,680
square feet. I do not see that figure on any of your submittals
-Identify Building 1, Building 2, Phase I, Phase II, etc. on all exhibits;
make sure landscape architectural/architectural drawings all use same
notations throughout
-Site area, building area, parking area calculations do not match--staff
can not determine landscape requirements without consistent data'~r
-monument signs can not exceed 60 square feet
-your landscape calculations need to clearly show: 1- interior landscape
required; 2- perimeter landscape required; 3-non-vehicular landscape
required
-all planting islands shall include at least one tree and contain shrubs,
lawn, and ground cover
-consideration should be given to retention vs. detention ponds because
of landscaping proposal
DRC Date: March 30, 2000
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: April 20, 2000
City Council Meeting: May 9, 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 April 6th Development
Review Committee (DRC) meeting.
B. Each applicant will bring one new set of revised plats and plans to the April 6th 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, April 11'~ 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
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
ITEM: PD-185, Coppell Industrial Addition. a zoning change request from I.I (Light
Industrial) to PD-LI (Planned Development, Light Industrial), to allow a
phased development of 2 office/warehouse facilities totaling 1,900,000 square
feet of space on approximately 1 O0 acres of property located along the north
side of gE. Bethel Road and 50' east of N. Royal £ane, at the request of
Champion Partners.
DRC DATE: March 30, 2000 and April 6, 2000
CONTACT: Mike Martin, P.E., Assistant City Engineer (972-304-3679)
PR EL IM1NA R Y R E VISED
AFTER P&Z
1. There is a concern about park traffic using the proposed main North-South drive as a cut-
thru from Creekview to Bethel Road.
APR 1 2 2OO0
...dj
~Z~ ~5~ C%TY OF COPPELL ~ 972 ~3~4 7892 NO.OG?
- DEVELOP~~iEWCOi~~,~
co s ¥
LEI!;IlRE
SERVICES
III
~ C~elll~s~l~i~n,~ntng~n~eR~ 3 0 ~
DRC DA~: ~r~ ~0, 2~
CO.ACT: Br~ ~ Park P~nning a~ ~sm~ Manger
COMMENT STATLIS: PRELIMINAR~_~
The tree surve~ indicates 1,169" o,f protected trees will be removed rts a result of
development, with 0" preseroe& A landscaping credit of 585" u~lll be allowed due to
replanting of the site. Further reparation for 584# of removed trees is require& This
amounts to a pa~/ment of $58,~00 to be paid to the Coppell Reforesfaffon and
Naeumlization Fun& ~
DRCO33000f
South Elevation
V(est Elevation
~ Z ; Z
North Elevation
-\RCH:TECTS. INC ..............
Real Estate-Si'~:ate-g-y ,&nd Implemema~.i-on
O,P~-I~-O0 lIED 02',~4 PH ¢t~HPION P~RTNER~ File NO, 972 380+0600 P,02
~AL ~TAT~ ~T~T~6Y AND ]~E~ENTATION
Pfl I 2ooo
Assis~nt ~]anni~
255 P~kway Bo~vard
CoppcH, Texm 75019 Via Facsimile 972~30~-7092
Re: Champion Indus~al Development
Dear Ms. Diamond:
Thank you again for the time you devoted to our proposed project yesterday. Jim Stewart
and I know that you have much to prepare for before Thursday night and we appreciate
your being available to meet with us on such short notice.
During our meeting, we discussed a variety of issues and concerns that the Planning
Department had about our project. This letter is being sent in order to confirm and clarify
the statements we made during our meeting time. The following points summarize the
specific items we discussed.
Champion commits to planting as many trees as is reasonable and practical along
Creekview Drive in order to improve the appearance of that area across from the new
park. In order to accomplish this, we will relocate some of the trees from the
detention pond area to the landscape buffer area along Creekview Drive.
· Champion will plant trees in the islands located in thc trailer parking areas. The trees
will have to be located in an area within the island that will not subject them to
damage from trailers, but should provide the visual "relief" that you desire. We will
also plant trees in the unpaved areas of the trailer court, next to any car parking areas,
if any, which might be located in that unpaved section.
· While our plans currently reflect a 15' landscape buffer along Creekview Drive, we
will, in fact, have a 30' landscape area from the property line to the back of the curb.
15601 Ddlns r~kway Suite 500 Addison, Tc~ns 75001
972/4~0-~600 FAX 972/,Ig(}-ZiSg9
ww~.ch~,n[~io n[a.'l n~rs.coln
...- ~-t~-O0 UED 02:[4 PH CNAHPiON PARTNER~ FR~ NO, 972 3~6+0600 P, 03
Ms. Mareie Diamond
April 19, 2000
Page 2
· You indicated that one 120 to 125 SF landscape wall feature that could also serve as a
sign and which "straddles" the property line between our two sites would be
acceptable to you. This will allow us to combine the 60 square foot sign limitation
per building in the current ordinance and construct a park entrance sign that will be
consistent with the high quality of the product we plan to develop on this site.
· Regarding parking, we again want to state that we have taken great care to ensure that
parking can be provided on site in order to meet the 1:1,000 ratio called for in the
ordinance and still meet the landscaping requirements. We have elected to go the PD
route in order to provide the flexibility desired by large corporate users of this type of
space. Please be advised that we are certainly prepared to provide parking in the
l:l,000 ratio if we are able to lease this speculative project to a tenant that has that
kind of requirement. We agree with you that the key to this will be in the final
drafting of the approved PD and we commit to the city that we will work diligently
with the staff in order to prepare a very workable, usable, understandable and
practical document.
If I have left out any major issue that we discussed on Tuesday, please let me know, I
hope that you now have a better understanding of what we are trying to accomplish with
our project. We acknowledge that it is complicated, but we believe that it is only
complicated because we are trying to provide flexible product for the type of large,
corporate users that the City of Coppell would like to see locate here. Thank you again
for your time, your assistance and your patience with us.
Sincerely,
Senior Partner
SMG:cc