MacPlaza1/PP-CS 960320P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
214-462-0022
Mr. Robert H. Voelker
Asian Real Estate, Ltd.
16415 Addison Road, Suite 630
Dallas, Texas 75248
March 20, 1996
RE: City of Coppell Staff Reports--CED Property
Dear Bob:
In response to your March 19 letter expressing concern with our staff recommendation on the
CED property, I would like to elaborate on our position here and, perhaps, shed some additional
light on our position. I am disappointed that you take exception to our suggestions, but also
state that we have recommended conditional approval of your overall proposal.
I begin by stating that I know the difficulty in coordinating three different engineers and four
different users' common goals in a development project. One of the City's major challenges is
to do just that--making sure that any development here is coordinated, compatible, and creates
a project that the entire community can be proud of. Although you take exception to the
comment regarding reluctance of community acceptance of these type uses, my twenty-five years
in this business nonetheless bears that fact out. In an attempt to assist this development
proposal, we felt it necessary to state the common reaction to such uses and then to expand upon
that fact by stating means by which it could be a positive development. Hence, our comments
regarding colors, landscaping coordination, signage, brick type, etc.--comments I would add that
have been discussed many times and specifically at the DRC meeting of March 7 when a
proposed color/design sheet was handed out to your users with no reluctance to follow those
guidelines stated by anyone at that meeting.
The reason we are suggesting the PD vs. the SUP is the fact that you do not meet the 15%
landscaping guidelines for each individual SUP user. However, by granting a PD and including
the open space area as an overall landscape computation area, the 15 % minimum requirement
is met. You would have no more work to do to convert to the PD, the Commission and Council
are historically more comfortable with PD's, the warehouse user is a PD, and our suggestion
was meant to make it easier for you to meet all our development guidelines and, hopefully,
generate a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission this Thursday. Without
meeting the 15 % condition, the SUPs would need yet another revision. We also felt adding the
"at Riverchase" would give the projects a locational advantage which would be welcomed by
these applicants.
Frankly Bob, we were sincerely trying to be helpful here, had the impression that there was no
problem with the colors, signage, and other development suggestions, felt the PD would actually
assist in getting Commission approval of the project and eliminate the landscaping issue, and
offered the ~at Riverchase* suggestion as a positive locational identity. Through bitter
experience I have found that this community does not take comfort in ~working all the details
out later~, hence our rather detailed staff report.
You were provided with our staff recommendation to assist you in your presentation before the
Planning Commission. It was given to you in advance of the meeting in good faith so that you
could adequately prepare a reasonable response to our position. Incidentally, as you may or may
not know, most communities do not reveal staff recommendations until the hearing itself. In
addition, I have outlined here reasons for our staff position in response to your March 19 letter,
and I feel we have used our best efforts to ensure a quality development. We are supportive of
your project with minor modifications, have suggested a way by which the Planning Commission
can bring these cases to closure, and feel the alterations outlined make for a better overall
development and one the citizens of this community--including you and me--can be rightfully
proud.
I am faxing this written response back to you so you have my comments in writing and there
is no misunderstanding through a telephone call. I am also placing a copy of this in the zoning
file and will provide the Planning Commission with both a copy of your original correspondence
and this response. I trust I have addressed your issues here and will be prepared to elaborate
on them at the public heating tomorrow night.
Yours truly,
D~~~ .eh, A.I.C.P.
ector'of Planning and Community Services
ce: Jim Witt
Planning Commission
f'fle