Loading...
PD178R-AG000328AGENDA REQUEST FORM March 28, 2000 ITEM ITEM CAPTION: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD-178R, Town Center West, Detail Site Plan Review of a Retail Center, zoning change request to amend the planned development and allow the construction of a 13,393 square foot retail/medical/restaurant facility on approximately 1.8 acres of property located at the southwest corner of N. Denton Tap Road and Town Center West Boulevargir TITLe.' Director of Planning and Commu/n/ty STAFF CO~$;. ........................................................... '~ Services Date of P&Z Meeting: February 17, 2000 Decision ofP&ZCommission: Approved (7-0) with Commissioners McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, Approval recommended, subject to the following conditions: © Two points of ingress and egress will be allowed behind building on the north side of the property. Height of light poles along Denton Tap Road not to exceed 30 feet. All other light poles to the west of the retail facility shall not excee ~d~feet in height. v,~ ....... ~-,,,-, ~ ~ ~"~ All light poles shall meet The 20' light poles shall be shielded and City standards for shielding and glare. \ p.~ ~ ttd. l~.qa.~ ~~,~ F, dd-/~~. @ (PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PAGE FOR MORE CONDITIONS) DIR. INITIALS: ?A~' FIN. REVIEW: _(~~ CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Agenda Request Form - l~evised 2/99 Document Name: ~PDI78R A copy of the shared access agreement with the south property owner shall b.e provided to City staff prior to the C~"_~:2 k~?_y;'~g ~~..~ Building signage, i.e. raceway, returns (not fonts) shall match that of Eleanor's Square. Total height of building shall not exceed 35 feet. ~,-~..~ ~ ' ' ,,1.,.-,1! '1., ..... AA~A; ..... ,h A,4 ........ /(-q~I~F)T'I'It"INI PD-178R CONDITIONS CONTINUED: © Applicant shall install, irrigate and maintain the landscaping along the north side of Town Center West Boulevard to City standards. The monument sign location shall be as shown on the Site Plan. T ....* ~; ...... ~,~n ~, r-nTTr, ~,,;,~n,,~ (CONDITION MET) Show overall height of structures on all elevations. Approved PD setbacks need to be noted on all plans. Parking provisions on all plans must match. d approval. Staff recommen s AGENDA REQUEST FOR2VI March 28, 2000 ITEM # lO ITEM CAPTION: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD-178R, Town Center West, Detail Site Plan Review of a Retail Center, zoning change request to amend the planned development and allow the construction of a 13,393 square foot retail/medical/restaurant facility on approximately 1.8 acres of property located at the southwest corner of N. Denton Tap Road and Town Center West Boulevard. SUBMITTED BY: Gary L. Sieb TITLE: Director of Planning and Community Services STAFF COMMENTS: Date of P&Z Meeting: February 17, 2000 Decision of P&Z Commission: Approved (7-0) with Commissioners McCaffrey, Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed. Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, Approval recommended, subject to the following conditions: Two points of ingress and egress will be allowed behind building on the north side of the 2. Height of light poles along Denton Tap Road not~_ ex.ceed 30 feet. All other light poles to the west of the retail facility shall not exceed 20 feet in height. 3. The 20' light poles shall be shielded and tun2e, _d off_no la~.r ,than I~.~.~.AI~. ,,.h~,gh~t,p~ole~s ~shas~e~t, na~r,._ city s[anoaros Io g gl . ? r~t 1 shall address the City's landscape requirements. Calculations must be com. plet_ed _a~n_d.. submitted prior to the City gouncu nearmg, e~r~-~ -.,', , It-' _ _ t~ _ _ _,.01 -- with the south roe owner shall be provided"*'~ 5. A copy of the shared access agreement p p rty to City staff prior to the .Council hearing.: x6. Building signage, i.e. raceway, returns (not fonts) shall match that of Eleanor's Square. 7. Total height of building shall not exceed 35 feet. ~f' (PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PAGE FOR MORE CONDITIONS) DIR. INITIALS: 9/~' FIN. REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Agenda Request Form-kevised 2/99 Document Name: @PD 178R PD-178R CONDITIONS CONTINUED: Applicant shall install, irrigate and maintain the landscaping along the north side of Town Center West Boulevard to City standards. '"1,0. The monument sign location shall be as shown on the Site Plan. T ....* o; ...... h~11 .~.tl~. I""TX;T/'''~ ~.,;A~I;.~ (CONDITION MET) 1 1 12. Show overall height of structures on all elevations. Approved PD setbacks need to be noted on all plans. 14. Parking provisions on all plans must match. Staff recommends approval. 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: C.C. 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) 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' HISTORY: Yorkshire West Capital, Inc., Tr. Alan Hinckley 12201 Merit Drive, Suite 170 Dallas, TX. 75251 (214) 991-4600 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 planlfing 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, ottr 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 fixtures 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 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 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 Januar3' 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 confitsing/misleading comments from both sides. In an attempt to create some order out of this application, the following additional ii,formation 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, ana~ 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 19feat 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 itsel)9, electing instead to respond with the comments in this same attachment. Long story short, issues st~ll needing to be addres3;ed include: Height of light standar*ls Individual lot landscape calculations Monument sign location Information ot~ type, color, size of tenant sig~ Total height of buildin~g including roof structure Denton Tap front yard is 60feet; Town Center West front yard is 30feet as specified in the approved PD Brick pavers aeed 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 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. 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 20feet 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 properl)' lines, the sign as submitted does not meet that distance requirement. Tenant signage needs to reflect C]V[C guidelines. Elevations need to show overall height of structures Approved PD setbacks need to be noted on all plans (which 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 titne to get it resolved. 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) 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 comments Item #4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COM) ~~~- s ~ss ENGINEERING COMMEN ~'~ ' ,~ ITEM: PD-178R~ To~n Center West, Detail Site Plan R~i~ ~ a Retail Center, a ~oning change request to amend the planned development and allo~ the construction ora 13,393 square foot retail facili~ on approximately 1.8 acres of prope~ located at the southwest corner of W. Denton Tap Road and Town Center West Boulevard, at the request of Dowdy, Anderson and Associates, Inc. DRC DA TE: November 23, 1999 attd December 2, 1999 COSTA CT: Mike Matin, P.E., Assistant Ci~ Engineer (972-304-3679) 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 ora retail center, daycare facility and child development center on approximately 4.$ 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: December 28, 1999 and January 6, 2000 CONTACT: Mike Martin, P.E., Assistant City Engineer COMMENT S TA TU$: ~° ~ ~ r ,,~ ,~ n ~ m r a ,~ .~, or' ~ ,/FINAL ~,~ No comments. WINSTEAD SECHR T & MINICK I)itcct OinJ: (214) 745-5745 December 16, 1999 Mr. Crary Sieb Director of Planning City of Coppell 255 Parkway Blvd. Coppell, TX 75019 VIA FAX 972/304-3:547 Re: PD178 Site Plans Dear Gary: .Pu.,-su~nt to my meeting with the City Attorney this morning, this Letter serves as a request to delete the two publishing items on tonight's P&Z agenda related to PDI 'z8. The applicant's site plan applica:ions were erroneously mischaracterized as zoning charges requiring public hearing in the public notice sent to thc adjo;ning property owners. Due to the mistake inthc notice, tonight's public hearings should be canceled. In the alternative and without waiving our client's legal rights, the applicant requests that any zoning charge request as to PD178 be withdrawn. The site plan applications are not zoning charge requests and should be properly noticed and considered at the next rcgularly scheduled P&Z meeting. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact mc. Sinccrely yours, cc: J'. David Dodd, III (via fax 214/965-0010) Glen Hinckley (via fax 972/991-7500) ::ODM.a3.PCDOC~OALLAS..I'~244~ilXl 12161999 [79:11942,4 I~C 16 '99 12:1.4 214 '745 5t~64 I:~GE.~2 P.O. Box 478 Coppell~ Texas 75019 972-462-OO22 December 17, 1999 Mr. Arthur J. Anderson, Esq. Winstead Sechrest & Minick 5400 Renaissance Tower 1201 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75270-2199 RE: December 16~ 1999, letter regarding 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 specifics of Planned Development District 178. Enclosed, for your edification, is a copy of a pertinent element of that PD clearly stating that the Planning Commission and City Council will hold a "... public hearing ..." prior to approval of a Detail Site Plan. On December 16m the Planning Commission conducted its required public hearing and continued the cases 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~irectc[r of Planning and Community Services ~cttachment Cc: Jim Witt Bob Hager (by fax 214/965-0010) J. David Dodd, HI (by fax 214/965-0010) Glen Hinckley (by fax 972/991-7500) SECTION 2. That the property 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 fight-of-way and ten (10') foot sidewalk and utility easement as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be conveyed to the City by separate instrument 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 fight-of-way to the City. F. The City shall, during the coKslx'uction of Town Center West Boulevard, construct a sidoptalk 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 provisigns will be consistent with PD-178, 3-lA 2 S526658 0G:4:~ (:['FY OF ¢OPPELL -~ 972 304 709~ ~ec-ZO-Iflg OS:A$~ I:ro~WI#STEAI) SECHR~ST & II1#1¢1C/1 +H4-74S-S3S0 NO. 127 SECHRF_.,ST & MINICX VIA FAX 9'/2/304-3:547 Mr. Gary Sieb Director of Planning City of Coppell 255 Parkway Blvd. Coppell, TX 75019 Re: PDI78 Site Plans December 20, 1999 Dear Gary With respect to your December 17 letter, you are correct that § 2.B. of thc ordinance requires a public hearing on al'u: dcm~lcd site plan application. However, thc application L~ not a rezon~ng rcques~ ~riggcring the provisions of§f 2! ! .007(¢) and _~11.006(d), Texas Local Gov'~ Code. Thc u~es ~own on the site plan comply with ex~stmg zoning and therefore are not at issu~ at ~s time. ~ you for your clarifying th~s maucr for the January 20, 2000 P&Z agenda. If you have any questions regarding this manet, please do not hesitate :o contae~ me. Sincerely youn, Arthur J. AMetson AJA/plg CC; Bob Hager (via fax 5.14/965-0010) Glen Hinckl~y (via fax 972/99 i.7500) ODMAXPL DOcSxDALLAS_! %t24b439~ I  ) COPPELL, TEXAS 75019 P.O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 972-462-0022 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 Requirements 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 heating 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 20'~ correspondence. '~ If you hav*e any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Barring thitt, we will discuss this matter in'detail on January 20th. YA:m~s truly, i Director of Planning and Community. Services Attachment Cc: Jim Witt Bob Hager (by fax 214/965-0010) Glen Hinckley (by fax 972/991-7500) WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK January 13, 2000 VIA FAX 214/965-0010 Robert E. I.Iager, 'Esq. Nichols, Jack.son, Dillard, Hagcr & Smith 500 N. Akard, #1800 Dallas, TX 75201 Re: Town Center West Retail & Children's Courtyard Project 5400 Rea~uace Towee Ddlhs, Tex~ 75270 214/745.5400 f~x 214/745-$3~0 v~t~,,vla~acLcom dial: (214) 745-5746 aaa del",.mt~y~'in~c ~.com Dear Bob: bThank you for arranging and attending thc January 11 meeting in Coppell which included , Ken Griffin, Bill Ander.,mn, Alert 1 lincklcy and Jim Mills. This letter is to confirm the t,~ reached between all of thc parties in preparation/'or the January 20 pla,ming & Zoning Commission meeting. ! understand that the detailed site plans that have been previously submitted to the City of Coppell by the owner on this project are now acceptable to the City staffand planning Dire'tot and a recommendation tbr approval will bc made to the members of the Planning & 7.oning Commission with the adopti, on of the following changes suggested by the City engineering department, Planning Director and City Attomcy, which changes are acceptable to the property owner: I. The curb cut for the Children's Cotm3tard shall be modified to accommodate two (2) separate curb cut opcaings and ]'im Mills of the Children's Courtyard shall provide h~oricai traffic peak time data to the Ci~ engineering department. 2. The landscape i~ue has been resoived by moving the retail building footprint north seven feet (7') to provide a landscape buffer on both the north and south side of the retail building.' Aside from the two items above, no other issues remain which prevent the city staff and Planning Director from supporting and malting a recommendation to the P&Z for approval. It is our further understanding ~tt prior to the January 20 P&7. hearing that: DALLAS HOUSTON AUSTIN MEXICO CITY Rober~ E. l-lager, ,Esq. Janum'y 13, 2000 page.2. The property owners' engineer will pr°vide rcviscxi plans confirming these changes will be added to thc P&Z packctz. The staff n.-port preVioUsly prepared on 12/13/99 'w~ll be removed from .the P&Z shall be packc~ and a r,svised~staff r~port prepared inditrating staff approval distributed .in the P&Z PaCkets and a copy provided to my client. .If you have any qu~tion:s or need addition'al inlbrmation, picas. ~: let mo lmow. Sincerely, Arthur J. Anderson AJA/plg cc: ^len Hincklcy (via fax 972/991'7500) Glen Hincklcy (via fax 972/991-7500). 179:L8942-2 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 3-1A 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\Central~P&ZSTF~febcomments~PD- 178-RTOWN CENTER WEST- DETAIL PLAN.doc 02/03/00 14:~8 CITY OF COPPELL '~ 9?2 304 ?092 OT:$gpm Frg~-WIN$1TkD SEC#I~$T & MINICK/~ ZI T-Z94 NO. 043 ~02 I~/INSTEAD SECHREST & MIl,lICK Febru~ 3, 2OOO .~40o gs~m~unc~ Tover Dgt~s. T~a~ ~0 ~ 214/'74,5-5,190 VIA FAX 214/965-0010 Roben E. linger, Nichols, J'ack~on, Dillard, Ha~er & Smith 500 N. Aka~d, #1800 Dallas, 'IX 7520]. Re: Town Center west - Detail Site Plan Approval Dear Bob; Same song, ~econd verse with respect to the attached staff comments. OUt client is very frustrated [hat ~c City of Copp~ll Plarming Depatun~t cominues to unte~onably withhold and delay approval of the detail site plan_ AS yOa confirmed following the January 11 mcctin8 you arranged, all panics consulted including the Planning Director, City Engineering and Property Owner were in agreement. Sino: tull agreement was reached with the two modifications requested by the City and accepted by the Estate, it was clear that no ou~tanding issues remain~l. On Ia~uary 20, my client relied on your communication and that of thc City Staff that no new or old issues remained prior to thc pos~c~onemcnt of their Site Plan and Preliminary Plat hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission. Now for my client to r~-ceive thrther ~velopmcnt r~vi~w committee CDRC") comments on January 211 for a m~tinll scheduled on February 3 is contrary to what you, City Staff and the Planning Director have previously committed. We respectfully ~cline at, end.tee at the upcomin~ DRC meeting as the City Staff DRC comments ate now outdated, and the revised plans previously iubmi~d for the Januao 20 P&Z h~arlag have addressed all thc issues r~ised. Specifically, the revisions to the sit~ plans relating to landscaping and side yatch are in compliance with requ¢$t~ by the Planning Director during the January 11 meeting, The traffic repon by DeShazo & Associates was submitted to K~n Griffin on January i 9 which conclusively showed no traffic conflict remains. As you 'know, this process began almost two years &go at the request initiated by the City for additional right of way. Not only Itati the Estate worked diligently and Ihirly ~ith thc City to accommod~¢ its request for additional right of way at a lignificam co~t and effort to my ~;iicat, but DALLAS N[~ClCO CITY ~2_/03/00 14::38 CiTY OF COPPELL ~ 972 3t~4 ~ Feb-03-gO'O0 UT'.'~pm Frgm'-WlNSTEAD SECH~$T & IIIItlCl(/Z Robert E. Hager, Esq, Februa~ 3, 2000 P.O03/O07 F-137 there is reliance on t~c agTeemems made by u~c City zhaf T~ Estate would not be further 'damaged or prevented t'tom ~veloping the site. My client has tolerated excessive delays and bas continued to comply with numerous late requests and cl~aaGcs to its plans by the City $1affover &e com~ of two DRC meetings and four significant rounds of plan zesubmittals, meetings and two Planning & Zoning postponements ia order to work with the guidelines set by ~ Planning Director and Staff. The~c cominucd delays and lack of'follow tlu'ough on p~or a~ree, n,.ents made by the City and its Planning Director and St~ffis very troubling and has become tau-easonable. I see no reason why this Det~! Site plan application ~ouid not be considered and approved at the upcoming Planning & gonin$ and City Council Hearings and a clean and factual -~afl'repon as ~ou had p:eviously promised presented tn ~ commissioners. Please give me a call at your earliest convenience to discuss a mutually acceptable resolution of this manet. Sincerely, A~hur J. Anderson Ga.'y Sieb {via fax 97~304--3547) Alert t4inckley (,,ia tax ~}7~}91-7500) · .ODM~ LeCOOC S~,DAL L A5_1 ~3363 '/al~ i 0~/03×00 14:38 CITY OF COPPELL -> 9'72 304 ?092 Ol:$Gpm ~ro~-I~INSTEAO SEC#REST & IIlIIICK/Z 214-74f~390 NO. 043 r-:~04 P.004/001' I~-!~? Chlriticndo. & An.wort Io 1/~000 CiO' Stiff Commwats P~I 7~ R Tow. Cea~r W.b~ Si~ P~m [;104 J. Pmvi~sly disused i ~e~ ~ D~ ~ 2"- Mou~mt Si~ w~ ~M m 6. ~vi~s~ ~mvcd .i~ P~ 178 ~ ~m~o ~e iJil~ v~ ~ d~ S~I ~ Simil~ m ~ Ou&~ ~elo~m. ia COp~ A Comply wi~ ~ 29 - Si~ 9. ~ SidcMIL is n~d on pl~s pr~iousl~ J ~ ~ne ] 2. ~c - ~r 15, I ~, ~ filed of recorfl - Vol. ~]S PS 4462 ~ Vol M ~ Prel~ine~ PIm 13 O~. a~ hs ben a~. I~.~ 15 A~S ~ ~ ~ - PI~ C~pl~o. wi~ PO a 178 ~on 3-1 A m 5. Do~ - S~ Site P~ 6. D~e-Tt~c ~l~l~ wM ~o~ by ~ · ~a~ lo CiW ~ J~ 19e. 7. Done- ~ m D~ ~dnK ~ ~c 2- ~ J~ t I . C~u poliey r~? ~1 appmwiate buil~ng~cl~ssroom. Pla I. Do~- Eaure Tract is Pi~ I ?S - Commercial Zoning - Z~i~ ~ ~c c~cd 2. ~ S~ Volmne md Page oa 3. ~PI~ C~plies ~ PD nlT~ at 55 ~ct. S~ ~~ Pl~ 4. ~S~ e~l~i~