Burch Add L1/LS-AG 960514WTth ^ 6isdifui Fi~,rg
CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
May 14, 1996
ITEM
ITEM CAPTION:
Consideration and approval of The Burch Addition, Lot 1, Block A,
Landscape Plan, to provide substitute landscaping to the existing
perimeter landscape areas and screen outside storage with landscaping
behind a decorative metal fence on property located at the southwest
corner of Denton Tap and Bethel School Roads.
SUBMITTED
TITLE: ' Planning and Co~. Services
STAFF
Date of P&Z Meeting: April 18, 1996
Decision of Commission: Approved (6-0) with Co~issioners ~eeler,
McCaffrey, Cruse, Redford, Reyher and Stewart voting in favor. None
opposed.
INITIAL~
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
EXPLANATION:
Approval ~ Denial
BUDGET AMT. $
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
AMT. EST.$
+/- BUD:$
FINANCIAL REVIEW~
~R~u~ ~-Revisedl/94
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
Document Name pzburchla.ls
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: BURCH ADDITION, LOT 1, BLOCK A,
LANDSCAPE PLAN .(HARDWARE STORE)
P & Z HEARING DATE: April 18, 1996
C.C. HEARING DATE: May 14, 1996
LOCATION:
Southwest comer of Denton Tap Road and Bethel School Road
SIZE OF AREA:
2.14 acres
CURRENT ZONING:
C (Commercial)
REQUEST:
Approval of revised site (landscape) plan
APPLICANT:
Mr. Wes Burch
(Owner)
2300 Sahara Drive
Arlington, TX
817-265-0823
Fax 214-471-2703
HISTORY:
On December 13, 1994, City Council reviewed the site plan for
Burch Addition, Lot 1, Block A, granted a waiver to permit a
wrought iron fence with landscape screening in lieu of a masonry
wall, and approved the final plat.
TRANSPORTATION:
Denton Tap Road is a P6D, six-lane divided thoroughfare built to
standard in a 100'-wide right-of-way.
Item # 16
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North -
South -
East -
West
non-conforming mobile homes, "O" Office zoning
auto service facility, dry cleaners and professional office,"C"
Commercial zoning
post office facility, "C" Commercial zoning
Grand Cove Estates residential subdivision, "SF-12" Single-Family
Residential zoning
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The 1987 Comprehensive Plan shows retail as the most
appropriate use. The proposed 1996 Comprehensive Plan
shows mixed use.
DISCUSSION:
The hardware store is an interesting development which has resulted in a great deal of
community discussion. Although some assertions have been positive, the vast majority of
comments received by staff have ranged from statements questioning the use of white brick, to
remarks regarding the lack of storage area screening, to concerns revolving around the lack of
following the approved landscape plan.
Staff can not address the white brick issue--remember, this was not an SUP which allows us to
offer guidance in determining brick color--but this application does present an opportunity to
evaluate the type of landscaping in the original proposal, the plant materials which are currently
on site, and the modifications being requested.
This development was originally approved by the City Council on December 13, 1994 subject
to an approved site plan. At that hearing, Council granted a decorative metal fence with
landscape screening in lieu of the typically required solid masonry fence along the south and
west sides of the building labeled as "shed area" on the applicant's exhibit. Subsequent to the
approved plan, the applicant changed landscapers, and is asking for modification to the approved
plan.
The modified plan makes major changes to the approved plan. For example:
trees approved as bald cypress are shown as transplanted Crape myrtles
the Tam juniper shrubs (370 plants) are now eliminated and only partially replaced with
hawthorn
the Nellie R. Stevens holly (roughly 100 plants), the bald cypress trees (4), and the
photinia (27 plants) have all been eliminated
It is difficult for staff to support the requested modifications to the approved site plan. In fact,
the proposal before you appears to ignore several reasons for the original approval. As just
stated, the landscaping on the proposed plan is far short of what the original proposal called out.
In addition, screening around the "shed" area is now in planter boxes which are not particularly
attractive, and it is difficult to keep plants alive in them. In our judgement this proposal is not
Item// 16
nearly as pleasing as the approved original, and it could be argued that the plan does not meet
the requirements of the Streetscape Plan--it does not screen what it is charged with screening,
namely the storage area.
In addition, the proposal to substitute a bermed area for landscaping because "cars can not see
the parking lot" just does not make a whole lot of sense in that Denton Tap Road is at least
three feet higher than the hardware store and one easily looks into the parking lot, berms or no
berms. Staff would agree that the parking lot landscaping could substitute plant materials other
than the photinia--although we do not feel trimmed photinia is inappropriate here--but such
change would still respect the original approved landscape proposal by replacing one landscape
material with a similar one, not eliminating plantings altogether.
Staff suggests that the original plan be modified to allow a plant material other than the photinia
if justification can be shown. The additional boulders to protect the entrances are merited but
should be labeled on the plan. The rest of this proposal should comply with the original
landscape plan for the remainder of the property, especially as it relates to screening storage and
parking areas visible from Denton Tap Road. We also feel that planting around the shed area
should be at ground level and not in planters due to the possible eventual unsightly nature of
planter boxes, the difficulty of keeping plants alive and healthy in them, the possibility that they
will not be stationary--especially around a storage area--and the fact that they just do not fit in
with the original planting plan which was represented as being planted in islands at grade level,
not above grade once the concrete apron was improperly poured.
In summary, then, by revising the approved landscape plan as suggested by this application, a
great disservice to the community results. The approved landscape is adequate but certainly not
excessive; staff is willing to recognize other approved plants being substituted for the photinia
at the front of the store, although a trimmed photinia makes a fine hedge. We feel very strongly
that the screening of the storage area should abide by the original approved plan. If an approved
plan has any validity, then it needs to be followed here, the request does not honor that plan.
On March 21, 1996 the Planning Commission took this request under advisement until the
April hearing so that the applicant and staff could arrive at a revision to the approved
landscape plan. We have met with the applicant on two occasions since the hearing and
submit the attached, comproml.qe plan.
Commissioners will recall that the direction given to staff and the applicant was to allow
his substitute crape myrtle trees for the Cypress, monkey (mondo) grass for the juniper's,
dwarf buford holly for the photinia/N. R. Stevens holly. The applicant also requested the
addition of boulders at the ends of the traffic islands and has agreed to substitute Fosters
holly for the original submittal of Savannah holly. Upon further conversation with staff,
the applicant has eliminated the hawthorne altogether, and replaced it with monkey
(mondo) grass and buford holly. In addition, the applicant has clarified that the landscape
screening around the storage area will be planted shortly, and shows on the plan a possible
expansion of the shed area to the west. If that expansion occurs, the applicant
understands it will require the same type and quantity of screening as the initial shed area.
With these agreed-to revisions, staff is confident that the spirit of the original proposal is
Item// 16
being maintained and the overall effect of the landscape plan has not been seriously
comprom[qed.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends disapproval of the amended plan with the exception of the minor alterations
mentioned above, i.e.; substituting for the photinia if justified, allowing a slightly different
approach treatment incorporating boulders. We would also draw the applicant's attention to a
zoning code violation involving outside storage along Denton Tap Road. Open storage is
allowed only within the rear 2/3 of the lot and only then when properly screened.
With the alterations outlined above (in bold), the attached revised plan merits a
recommendation of approval from the planning staff.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve the Landscape Plan
2) Disapprove the Landscape Plan
3) Modify the Landscape Plan
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Proposed landscape plan
2) Original, approved landscape plan
3) Revised Plan (which is a modification of 1 and 2 above)
Item// 16