U-Haul/SPAm-AG010710C PPELE AGENDA REQUEST FORM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING: July 10, 2001 ITEM # I,.~
ITEM CAPTION:
Reconsider approval of the U-Haul International, Site Plan, to allow the construction of a three-story mini-
storage facility on approximately 2.02 acres of property located along the south side of S.H. 121, east of
Denton Tap Road. A PPR O VED
SUBMITTED BY: Gary L. Sieb
TITLE: Director of Planning and Community Services
STAFF COMMENTS:
BY
CiTY COUNCIL
DATE '7-1~-,o/ _
Date of P&Z Meeting: June 21, 2001
Decision of P&Z Commission: Denied (7-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey,
Clark, Halsey and Stewart voting in favor of denial. None opposed.
Denial is recommended.
Staff recommends denial.
DIR. INITIALS: ,~J~fa
Agenda Request Form - Revised 5/00
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
~UhaulSP
The development of this property shall be in
accordance with the Site Plan, Elevations, Floor
Plan and Sign Plan.
o
No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until
the site is constructed according to the approved
Site Plan, including the required landscaping.
The sign return match existing attached signage
in the shopping center.
Councilmember Herring seconded the motion; the motion carried
7-0 with Mayor Pro Tem York and Councilmembers Garcia, Peters,
Raines, Tunnell, Stover and Herring voting in favor of the motion.
There was a short recess held at this time.
15. Reconsider approval of the U-Haul International, Site
Plan, to allow the construction of a three-story mini-
storage facility on approximately 2.02 acres of property
located along the south side of S.H. 121, east of Denton
Tap Road.
Presentation:
Gary Sieb, Director of Planning and Community Services, made a
presentation to the Council.
Art Anderson, Applicant, made a presentation to Council.
Jeff Evans, U-Haul, addressed questions from Council.
Issues Discussed:
There was discussion regarding parking; and the windows.
There was a call for an Executive Session at this time.
Cm 07102001
Page 10 of 16
EXECUTIVE SESSION (Closed to the Public)
Convene Executive Session
A. Section 551.071, Texas Government
Consultation with City Attorney.
Code
Mayor Sheehan convened into Executive Session at 9:19 p.m. as
allowed under the above-stated article. Mayor Sheehan adjourned
the Executive Session at 9:26 p.m. and reopened discussion on
Item 15.
Issues Discussed:
There was further discussion regarding the traffic in that area, the
proposed screening wall; would U-Haul consider leaving the big
trucks parked out front only during the hours of operation; what
hours would the outside lighting be on; security issues; and the
number of trucks which would be parked at the site.
Action:
Mayor Pro Tem York moved to approve the U-Haul International,
Site Plan, to allow the construction of a three-story mini-storage
facility on approximately 2.02 acres of property located along the
south side of S.H. 121, east of Denton Tap Road with the following
conditions:
Hours of operation: Saturday through Thursday
- 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Friday - 7:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m.
The glass on the North elevation shall be tinted
at 48% by the PPG Comparable Standard as
read by Mr. Anderson. The East and West
elevations of the building will be opaque.
Only three (3) parking spaces in the front yard
on the Northeast side of the building.
4. There will be no propane station.
o
There will be conformance to the site elevation,
as submitted on June 8, 2001.
Cm 07102001
Page 11 of 16
Landscaping and conformance to the site plan
dated June 25, 2001, which includes the 14 four
(41 inch caliper trees on the Northeast comer of
the site and everything else that was listed on
the site plan and the hedges on the Northwest
side.
Same light standard to be less than 1 candle,
shielded as measured at the property line.
On the South side and on the East side to where
the landscape island that separates the parking
on the East side of the site there will be an eight
{8) foot masonry fence and will match the
existing school brick.
9. After 8:00 p.m. no internal lighting will be on.
10.
Outside truck parking is allowed in the three (3)
parking spaces on the Northeast corner of the
site and 11 trucks could be parked back behind
the extrusion on the Southeast comer of the site
and where the eight (8} foot wall is located.
11.
Parking of boats, recreation vehicles, vehicles,
oversize campers, will be prohibited.
Councilmember Stover seconded the motion; the motion carried
6-1 with Mayor Pro Tern York and Councilmembers Garcia, Peters,
Raines, Stover and Herring voting in favor of the motion and
Councilmember Tunnell voting against the motion.
16.
Consider approval of the St. Joseph Village, Lots 1-4,
Block A, Preliminary Plat, to allow the development of a
Retirement Community and municipal facilities on
approximately 51.17 acres of property located along the
south side of Sandy Lake Road, 1200' east of MacArthur
Boulevard.
Presentation:
Gary Sieb, Director of Planning and Community Services, made a
presentation to the Council.
Joe Dingman, Applicant, addressed Council questions.
Cm 07102001
Page 12 of 16
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Note: This site plan is different, but the use is identical to a request unanimously denied by Planning
Commission in September, 2000. Staff would typically not present the case again, however legal
counsel recommended that we reprocess it due to formal application and filing fees being
resubmitted. Hence, the following staff report, with additions from the original study shown in
italics, is offered for consideration. Since the December 12 Council meeting (at which time the
Council continued the case to January, then referred the case back to the Planning Commission),
additional alterations to the request have been made and staff's most recent response is shown in
bold in the below written report. On May 8, 2001, the Council remanded this case back to Planning
Commission since a number of changes had been made to the plan between Planning Commission
denial and City Council deliberation. The most recent staff analvsis_for the June 2001 hearing is
shown underlined and italicized.
CASE: U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, SITE PLAN
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
SIZE OF AREA:
September 21, 2000 (November 16, 2000) (March 15, 2001) June
21, 2001
October 10, 2000 (December 12, 2000) (April 10, 2001) duly 10,
200!
Along the south side of S.H. 121, approximately 350 feet east of
Denton Tap Road.
Approximately 2.02 acres of property.
CURRENT ZONING:
HC - Highway Commercial
REQUEST:
Site Plan approval for a three-story, 72,000 square foot warehouse
facility. The_footprint of the building has increased_porn 24,810 to
27,360 square feet, a 2,550 square foot expansion. The warehouse,
showroom, dispatch building interior has increased by 150 square
_feet.
Item# 9
ATTACHED TO
C.C. PACKET
APPLICANT:
U-Haul International, prospective purchaser
2727 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ. 85004
(602) 26345502
Fax: (602) 277-1026
HISTORY:
Them has not been development activity on this parcel although the
Council approved a Jack-in-the-Box Restaurant on property to the
west of this parcel in May of this year.(2000) The Jack m the Box is
currently under construction (now complete). A site plan request for
warehouse use was originally heard by the Planning Commission on
September 21, 2000, where it received unanimous denial. It was not
appealed to Council. Not only did the zoning not accommodate the
use, but there were several other developmental issues the applicant
failed to adequately address. Several of those issues are outlined in
the accompanying staff report. Between September and the
application date for November cases, the Council changed the zoning
from L! to HC, a zoning classification that does not support
warehouse use. A revised application was submitted to Planning
Commission in November, and the Planning Commission denied
the request by unanimous vote on November 16. The case was
appealed to Council, and would have normally been heard on
December 12. On the 12a however, there was a snow/ice storm in
Coppell, and the Council continued this request until the January
hearing date. On January 9~' the Council considered a case that
had numerous changes from the Commission submittal including
different landscaping, altered parking, changed screening,
modified elevations, and other revisions. Beyond the fact that the
Council was reviewing a different plan, additional concern was
expressed over the parking of large vehicles in front of the
building, lighting, and the clear glass for first, second and third
story windows. The City Council referred the ease back to the
Planning Commission. The applicant has now submitted a
further revised application, and staff review of that request
follows in bold print. Between a Planning Commission denial Of the
March 15, 2001 redesign, and the CiO, Council hearing in May, the
applicant modified again plans for this site by submitting new
information. The most recent submittal enlarges the building, shows
a 25_foot wide drive-through area, proposes some clear and some
smoked glazing, modifies the parking plan, alters the number and
size of storage areas, recalculates the landscaping requirement,
changes the masons_percentages, and generally presents yet another
variant on a plan consistentl¥ denied by Commission.
Item# 9
TRANSPORTATION:
State Highway 121 will eventually be built here as a six-lane divided
freeway. The subject tract is adjacent to the eastbound one way
service road of this highway and consists of three lanes of pavement.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- State highway 121; City of Lewisville zoning
South - Denton Creek Middle School; SF-7
East - Denton Creek Middle School; SF-7
West - vacant site for Jack-in-the-Box restaurant; HC zoning
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for regional
retail uses of which this proposal is questionable at best.
DISCUSSION:
This is a request for a use not allowed in the base-zoning category of HC,
Highway Commemial. In addition, there are several concems with the plan
that merit mentioning in an overall analysis of the proposal. To understand
this entire issue, several action dates need to be kept in mind:
May 18~?PC called hearing to consider HC zoning
(cont. two months due to advertising error)
Jun. 2~letter from landowner opposed to HC
zoning
Jun. 7 contract to purchase property signed
dui. 20--unanimous CPC approval of HC zoning
Aug. 8--Council continues HC to Sept. 12
Sept. 12--Council approves HC zoning
Sept. 21--Planning Commission denies first request
Oct. I O--HC ordinance adopted
Oct. 18--new site plan application submitted
Nov. 16-CPC hearing and denial of second request
Dee. 12 City Council hearing (continued to Jan.
because of weather)
Jan. 9 Council refers case back to Planning
Commission (see attached letter dated Jan.
10, 2001)
Mar. 15--Planning Commission re-hearing and
recommendation .for denial on third
consideration
April 1 O--Tabled at applicant's request
May 8, Council remands plan back to Commission for
a June 21, 2001 reconsideration
Subsequent to Planning Commission denying this application on September
21, there was no appeal to Council and the applicant resubmitted a revised
plan on October 18, 2000. These dates are important in that the applicant is
claiming he submitted an application seeking site plan approval prior to the
zoning change disallowing his proposed use Although we strongly disagree
Item//9
with that line of thought, we have processed this revised application. Initial
review of this plan outlined at least 18 specific concerns of staff(see attached
U-Haul letter dated October 31, 2000). See attachment.
In addition to the time frame analysis, there are several concerns with the
plan that merit mention in an overall analysis of the proposal. For example,
details of the request show a three-story warehouse to be mn by the U-Haul
organization. The facility is shown to have several overhead storage access
doors on the first level that continue around the building. Many of these
doors have been eliminated m the most recent submittal. (the Oct. 18~' plan).
In addition, there are other, large access doors that create a rather unusual and
somewhat awkward scale to the building. Between Oct. 18 and I}ec. 12,
the applicant made a host of changes including the moving of doors,
reconfignring parking spaces, changing plant material, among others.
The plan submitted for the March 15 hearing basically reflects the
alterations between the Planning Commission plan of Nov. 16, and the
City Council plan of Dee. 12. The building is also shown to have a series of
different color schemes ranging from orange parapet stripe, to tan Dryvit (an
imitation of stucco) elevation, to forest green metal panels, to tan brick
facade, to light tan brick horizontal stripes, to vast areas of glazing, to an
undefined reddish colored series of overhead metal doors encompassing the
building. This jumble of building colors, materials, and finishes results in a
building that is very awkward looking. There are also several over-sized
parking spaces at the from of the building which are obviously placed there
for outside storage/advertising, which is not allowed. During our
development review of the most recent submittal,(Oet. 18) the applicant
agreed advertising was not allowed, but insisted that L__I zoning permitted
display of U-Haul identified trucks. (Again, please see correspondence of
October 31, 2000 attached). There is no district in the Coppell Zoning
Ordinance that allows this type of vehicular signage. None has been added
subsequent to the Oct. 18 snbmittal. Landscaping calculations are not in
the proper form. Calculations are now in proper form. There are no
dimensions on the sidewalk. Sidewalk dimensions are now included
Appropriate landscape screening of parking spaces is not reflected on the site
plan. This has now been partially addressed. The June 2001 plan now
shows required screening of these parking spaces. Although there are three
examples of monument signage, it is unclear which one is preferred. In
addition, the sign should be the same masonry material as shown for the
majority of the building. A fifteen-foot monument sign setback needs to be
specified on the site plan. The signage issues have now been resolved Plant
material does not indicate size/caliper of landscaping. The October 18
submittal indicates our minimum 3" caliper tree standard The June 2001
submittal shows 4" caliper trees replacing the 3" ones. Fire lane radii do not
meet minimum guidelines, Fire lanes conform on the new plar~
Item # 9
As stated above, upon review of the re-submittal, planning staff expressed 18
concerns, including improper zoning. In responding to those concerns (the
U-Haul letter of October 30, many of the comments do not satisfactorily
address the issue, and 6 of the 18 are still not resolved
The use proposed here is troubling in that it does not reflect a use recognized
by the Comprehensive Plan. As indicated by the Plan, regional retail uses are
those with good access to highways such as restaurants and retail centers. A
warehouse is not defined as a regional retail use, so from the Plan's vision for
the future, it is not recommended for this site. Our re-analysis draws the
same conclusior~ Even if LI standards were applied to the most recent
submittal, there are several development violations including landscaping
area deficiencies of at least 1100 square feet; all parking areas do not
included landscape islands at their ends with trees in the landscape areas;
lighting proposed for the building is in violation of our zoning glare
standards; the color board submitted still does not detail glass to be used and
color of the overheard service doors; service doors on the front of the
building must be screened from public streets; all portions of the building
within 150feet of a residential zone can not exceed 35feet in height. Some
of these issues have been addressed bp the June 2001 re-submittal.
The applicant has provided you with additional information (first
presented to Council at its Dec. 15 meeting) for the March 15 hearing in
the form of a narrative and pictorial booklet attached to the exhibits.
Phrases used in the booklet to describe the relationship between U-Haul
and (apparently) some communities such as: "...mutually beneficial
relationships;...aesthetieally pleasing (buildings);...works closely with
governmental agencies;...ensures that all local objectives and
specifications are met;...ensures local planning objectives are adhered
to"; does not accurately reflect the relationship we have experienced with
this applicant. That same booklet has been submitted for the June 2001
hearing.
The plan submitted for the March hearing addresses several of the
technical concerns outlined above, but is still inappropriate for this
property. It still violates the comprehensive plan; the base zoning is HC,
not LI as stated on the site plan (it is interesting to note they have added
on the most recent exhibit: "This site has been developed under the "LI"
zoning in place at the time of submittal"), and HC does not allow this use.
Several concerns expressed by Council have not been addressed
including the oversized parking spaces in front of the building (Council
requested those spaces be removed from the front of the building), and
Council's suggestion of a frosted glass or glass brick treatment to the
window areas. In addition, comments made during the review process
disagreeing with our signage requirements, inadequate width of at least
one landscape island, an increase in light standard height from 25 feet to
30 feet, three redesigned and oversized parking spaces on the east side of
Item# 9
the building (now shown as 30 feet by 12 feet) are all changes made since
the last submittal (in addition to the changes between Commission and
Council in January) that makes this request very difficult to evaluate,
lends a "moving target" perspective to the project and gives staff pause
as to what the final project is to look like. We have also requested a
revised color board and a larger sample of the "Sierra sunset" roofline
border color which have not yet been received. ,4 revised color board
reflecting the dune submittal has been received, and will be circulated at the
public meeting.
With regard to our latest 21 point review (attached), ~his comment
referred to the March 1.5 submittal, and is attached for review purposes only)
the applicant has explained item #3, increased the height of item 04, noted
the building will not be externally lighted in item #5, complied with item
#7, #8, #9, #17, #18, #20, and #21.
,4lthough some staff concerns have been addressed others have not and this
latest proposal shows a number of additional changes. For example,
although Council expressed misgivings regarding the over-sized parking
spaces in_front of the building, and window treatments of this proposal, the
applicant has general()/ignored those concerns. There are still three over-
sized parking spaces in front, and not all window areas are frosted, opaque.
or glass block as suggested. ,4lthough the applicant now claims his most
recent submittal is only 150 square feet larger than the earlier proposal, that
figure is ve~_ deceiving. When 3,750 square feet is added to the footprint ora
building, it simply becomes bigger regardless o_f the wa3, the interior spaces
are partitioned. In fact, in this case the building bulk has grown b)/ more
than 10%/ In addition, the applicant has misinterpreted our parking
requirements, and his calculations are one space short of required parking
for this use where legally allowed ,4 circulation drive on the west side has
been eliminated, e/evations have again changed, masons_ percentages are
altered, landscape calculations are different and parking spaces have been
reduced even though the building has gained square footage.
Additionally, questions regarding the non-conformity of the building if it
were built, all point to the fact that this proposal does not reflect sound
planning and development.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends denial of this request for a variety of reasons-several stated above-
and the fact that HC zoning does not allow general warehousing activities of any
type. Our assessment of this use not being proper at this location, not conforming to
base zoning, not complying with specific elements of the zoning ordinance, and
certainly not supportive of the Comprehensive Plan compels us to recommend denial
of this re-application.
Item # 9
Based upon the comments above, our re-analysis of the revised plan, and our
view that the applicant has not addressed concerns expressed in the public
hearings, we again recommend denial of this proposal.
From the initial submittal some time ago, and with each subsequent review this
applicant has consistently ignored staff comments regarding this proposal. For
example, the zoning on this property is HC, )/et the applicant ignores that_fact by
placing a note on the submittal stating: "This site has been developed under the LI
zoning in place at the time of submittal". It has been our position from the very first
submittal that the zoning was changed to HC in September of 2000, with adoption qf
the ordinance on October 10. The many iterations of this application were first
submitted to staff on October 18. Warehouse use is not allowed in HC zoning. The
Comprehensive Master Plan has shown this property to be utilized for regional retail
uses_for over four years. Warehouse use is not regional retail Other concerns relate
to the "moving target" this application has taken over the last several months, as
each submittal is different from the one preceding it, some substantially so. Room
mix continues to change, landscaping and parking is continually mod!fled Although
Council suggested the oversized parking spaces in _front o_f the building should be
relocated on the site, the most recent plan ignores that thought. Elevations are
different with each set of review documents submitted to staff. In addition, an
erroneous reading Of the zoning ordinance results in the plan being deficient in
required parking. Also, as pointed out by Commission at the March 15, 2001
hearing, the perspective drawings are misleading showing fully mature trees that will
take years to reach the size indicated The brick screening _fence dividing this
property [bom the school also misrepresents what is to be eventually constructed on
site. That same drawing shows all windows to be smoked ~lass with no interior
visibiliw, yet the elevations show clear glass in some o_f these same windows.
Although we had asked the applicant to specify window glass treatment in all
windows at the DRC meeting, the elevations still do not address that request.
Credibility has not been a strong point in our dealings with this application.
In summary,, then, this proposal is not allowed by existing zoning, does not compIy
with the Comprehensive Plan, has been proposed in violation of the zoning
ordinance, the exhibits offered miss-represent what would actually be constructed on
site, we have to guess at the overall appearance of this project, and the building is
now substantially larger than the original application denied by Planning
Commission no less than three times.
In essence this is the same request--only larger--heard bY Commission and
consistently denied. A denial is warranted again.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend approval of the request
Item/4 9
3)
4)
Recommend disapproval of the request
Recommend modification of the request
Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
Packet of revised Information including:
Site/landscape plan, elevations, signage, survey information, brochure
including a staff requested floor plan of the facility
U Haul correspondence of October 31, 2000 responding to (October) most recent
staff review
Copy of June 2, 2000 letter opposing HC zoning
Copy of June 7, 2000 contract of sale
Letter of January 10, 2001
Copy of March 1 development review comments
Cot?? of June 2001 development review comments
Item# 9
1i/02/00 THU 08:58 FAI 214 ?45 $864 W$&.li DALLAS FLOOR 54 ~002
LJ-HAU
CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL · 7727 N. CENTRAL AVE. · PHOENIX. AZ 850~4
PHONE: (602) 26;3-650~ ,, FAX: (602) 27'7-1026 · EMAILJe/f_eve~
October 31, 2000
Gary Sieb
Planning Department
City of Coppell
255 Parkway 8oulevard
Coppell. Texas 75019
NOV,- 2 200O
Dear Sir:
I am writing in response to the DRC comments dated October 27, 2000 regarding the site plan
submittal for U-Haul International. I have addressed eacl~ comment individually.
1. Th~s use ~s not allowed in the base zoning.
the ~me or tJ~e sul~mi~tal cf this project, the property carried the "LI" zoning desig~t~on. Our use is
ccmpatible ,,~th, and allowed in, the "LI" Zoning district.
2. The proposed use ~s not recommended by the comprehensive plan...
See alive.
3. All parYJng .spaces are not cl'rrner~sioned.
It iS customary to dimension only one space in a line of parking; it is assumed tl'~t the remaJnincj
sl:~aces are identical in size :o that space. In order to further cla~'ify the situation we have added
note[ion "TYP" co each ot [he climenssons. It this iS not sufficient, please specify I~ow ycu would like
spaces to ~ dimensioned and we will comply.
4. 80% masonry reclukement does not k~clude Dryvft: we recommend agak~t t~is materfai on U~e
20% porrbn of the buildings.
TMe extedor insulation and finish system makes up no more than 3% of the front facade of Ute Duiicling
and conside~'al~ly less w~en U"e calcu~a, ted across all tl*m e~va~or~. We have previously used this as
p~'imary finish material on Duildin§s in the Dallas area ~ have no reason to l~eieve that the sinai
amount on this building will constitute a proIDiem.
5 La~tdscape calculat~or~$ should be placed on the site plar~ and ~.dlcate: ~ter~or iar~dscaPe
requ~'ement; perkneter I.s. requirement; non. vehicular o~en space requirement; all as outl'~ed
in tl~e zoning or~linance.
We have made every effort to calculate and present Ihe landscape requirements in complete deta~.
We I~ave ~sled each of the above requirements in a sepm'ate calculation, wilh the zoning sec-lion, and
have even prov,ded diagran'~ to explain each area. We m'e at a loss to explain how you cxxJId make
the claim the! this information is not on ~ site plan. If you have specific objecUons as to Ute
the calculations, please state them and we wil be happy to
~£/02/00 TRLr 08:$8 F.~ 2[4 745 $884 WS&.~ DALLAS FLOOR 54 ~]003
6. Lanclscapk~g area and plant material I~st sl3own do not meet minimum requirements.
In your letter doled Septeml3er 22, 20~0 to U-Haul InternaUonal your only comment with regard to the
landscape was item No. 6 - that the 'Plant materials do not specify size and caliper.' The drawings
submitted to you cdearly state the size and caliper. The information is identical in all other respects.
Please let us know specifically what requirements have been added since tl~ September 22, letter and
we v~ll provide you with this information.
7. All landscape areas not dimensioned.
Each ~andscape area incJudes a dimension of its depth. We would be I'rappy to include any additional
dimensions you wish to specify. In the absence of this information I have relied upon this standard
architectural practice.
8. Parldng must t~e screened from neighboring property lines.
The parking areas are screened Eom the adjoining property lines with a new 6' masonry scteenwaJt.
This fact is deady noted and a detail has been provided per your previous requesL At the September
7~' ORC meeting we stated that it was our understanding that the drive to the west side of the property
need not be screened from an adjacent 'Lr' zoned property. At that time we also offered to provide
such screening if we were in error. At no time during that meeting or after have you said I:hat such
screemng is neces~ry. If this is the intent of your comment, please show us ,M3ere it is required by the
code znd .,~e~ will ~rcvide ~t.
9. Park//'~7 spaces b3 front seem excessive; no truck parkfr'x2 wfth advert~icg a/lowed on site;
ston~g or dL~play o! rental tra~/ers or vehicles not allowed in, parking spaces, or on site
As we informed you at the September 7=` DRC meeting, the sp~ces at the front of the site are sized to
allow us to park our rental trucks in those spaces. At that meeting you informed us that we would not
be atlo~,~d to place additional aOvertising signs on or arcund the vehicles, and we will not. No rental
equipment will ~ placed in a customer space. Your staCement that the trucks and trailers for rent are
not a~wed on the s~te is simply in error. The 'LI" zcning, whicYt enccmpasses the 'C' zoning,
specifically alto~,~ for 'Automobile and truck renla~" and ~trailer renial." The w~rding is c,~ear and
specific.
10. ,Screening wall not all~wed irt the front yard.
Section 34-1-8 (C) Perimeter I.,andscaolnq states that parking and vehicular use areas shaJ be
screened Irorn public rights-of-way 0y a 'wall, fence, hedge, berm, or olher clural31e landscape ~arder."
We are not aware o~ any section of the code negating this provis[on. If such a negation exists. Dbase
tell us ,,,4hat seclion, and we ~11 provide another form of screening.
! ~. Inter,Or #gnted and plasfc bubble signage not allowed.
Our sign detail c!ear~y calls out tl~ tetlers as 'pan-channel." You in~orrned me tha~ this was an
acceptable signage a~ the September 7~' DRC meedng. I do not know wha[ '131astJc bul~le signage' is,
but I am confident Ihat a metal channel ~et~er Opes not fall into this category.
12. Complete cok~r board requked...
Oue to the thr~y ~umamu~d reqult~ by ~ur schedu~, a~ ~ s~fici~ of ~e mate~a~ f~
in ~ur ~s~. We ~1 provide ~h~ ex~n~ materia~ O~ for ~e ~em~r 16~ Planni~ Oe~
submission.
08:59 F.~ 214 ?45 5554 WS&~ DA[.L~.S F~00R 54 ~004
13. Larger sampte of "Siema Sunset'accent coior needed; wkJtl~ of tills band at top of bu~ling ~t
dimensioned.
We will provide this sample with the expanded color I:>oard. We am not aw'are of any p~'evtous request
or requirement to dimension ~ Individual details of the building; however, the area in question is 12'
high.
14. Over-all footprk~t dimensions are not shown on the pJan.
The overall dimension of the building is 175' by 150' and is, in Fact, clearly shown on the plan.
15. North prope~ line not clear~, lal~led.
The north property line is clearly labeled as 'curve 1' and includes the radius, ~c length, delta, chord
length and chord bearing. If there is further information that can be provided for a curve, please specify
your requiremenls and we will provide it.
16. Ligh#r~g proposed appears excessive.
The lghling sl~wn is designed to standard used throughout the U-Haul system. Our previous
submittal included an identical ~}hting plan and no comments were provided at bhat time. Your wording
indicates that this may be a suggestion rather than a requirement. If you have any sCecific sugges'do,ns
we would be hapi~'y to consider them.
17. City does not have an 'IL" zoning class~ation.
This was an error on our part. We have revised ~ drawincjs to read 'LI" rather than "IL." We regret
any confusion this may have caused.
18. Deceleration lane not shown on plan.
This deceleratJon lane did not exist at ~e time our plan was dr~fted. We will endeavor to provide this
information on the plans for tl~e November 16~ Planning & Zoning meeting.
If you have any quesMons, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerer,,
Jeffrey A. Evans
City Council
City of Coppell
255 Parkway Blvd.
Coppelk TX 75019
Gentlemen:
DENTON TAP DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
3721 Shenandoah St.
Dallas, TX 75205
(214) 520-3611
June 2, 2000
Via:
JUN -
cCITY MANAGER
ITY OF COPPELL
Facsimile, Hand '
and Certified/vi
ituate(a,~me
The undersigned is the owner of a 7.223-acre tract of land s
southeast comer of Denton Tap Drive and State Highway 121 Bypass in CoppeLl. This
property was acquired from Centex Development Company, who retained and continues
to own the 1.606-acre tract constituting the hard comer of what was originally a 8.829-
acre tract in total.
It has come to our attention that the City is considering a zoning change of this
property fi'om its current classifications of "Light Industrial" and "Commercial" to
"Highway Commercial". It is also our understanding that the Planning and Zoning
Commission has heard and approved the proposal. All of this has happened without any
notice to us, formal or informal. We understand that this is true with respect to Centex as
well.
We must and do object to this proposed action in the strongest possible terms.
Due process requires that we not only have notice but an opportunity, to be heard on this
matter, with a reasonable time to prepare for heatings at each level of the re-zoning
process.
It is our intention to be a responsible developer in your community, and we would
hope that the City would, at a minimum, see that we are treated fairly.
cc:
Gary Sieb, Director of Planning
Robert Hager, City Attorney
Sincerely,
BY:~~~-Dent°n Tap Developme~.~.
~,lphen ~" Th°mps°n - \~'''
tS:Z~ F~CW-;081NSCN & tCLE~TY 31TH??tZ0 T-OZI P 013/015 F-TOG
SBLL~
Nam~ and Title:
n U,.e earm
:s :~cait:t :t =.% S~.-'ne~: M=r. ey on ~
/ .
January 1 O, 2001
U-Haul International
2727 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
RE: U-Haul lnternational~ Site Plan
Dear Madam/Sir:
This letter is to inform you that on Tuesday, January 9, 2001, the Coppell City Council remanded the U_.:
Haul International. Site Plan, to allow the construction of a three-story mini-storage facility on
approximately 2.02 acres of property located along the south side of S.H. 121, approximately 350 feet east
ot' Denton Tap Road, to the Coppell Planning Commission for reconsideration. The next Commission
meeting is scheduled for February 15m with a presubmission deadline of 12 noon, Friday, January. 12th,
since we will be closed Monday, January 15~, in observance of Martin Luther King, Jr., Day.
There were several comments made by Council regarding your application, including: · the use of opaque glass/glass block in window openings;
· lighting of the proposed building and its effect on surrounding neighborhoods;
· landscaping calculations track with Ordinance requirements (see attached example);
· moving oversized truck parking spaces to the side/rear of the building, and
· clarifying the hours of operation to be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. seven days a week.
We presume you will address these issues, at a minimum, with your resubmission. If you cannot prepare
new exhibits by Friday, I have attached a copy of our revised submittal schedule. In order to provide the
Commission and Council accurate information, please include full color renderings with your submission.
No additional filing fees will be required.
If you have any questions, please contact us at (972) 304-3675 at your convenience.
Sincerely, _
.C.P.
I~recto~of Planning and Community Services
A~[tachments (2)
Building Inspection
file
City of Coppell
Development Review Committee Comments
Planning Department
U-haul International
Site Plan Approval
Southside of S.H. 121, east of N. Denton Tap Road
DRC Date: February 22, 2001, March 1, 2001
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: March 15, 2001
City Council Meeting: April 10, 2001
1. This use is not allowed in base zoning.
2. The proposed use is not recommended by the Comprehensive Plan; in
addition:
3. Your Site Demographics block indicates the zoning of this property as LI.
The correct zoning is HC. You need to change the development standards in
that block.
4. Specify height of light standards "A" and "B".-(increased height of light
standards from 25 feet to 30 feet)
5.Explain lighting ofbuilding. Couilding will not be externally lighted)
6. 80% masonry requirement does not include Dryvit or EFIS; we recommend
against these materials on the 20% non-masonry portion of buildings.
~ ...... ~ ..... I~**~p ~.,~ T ....... in ann1 (condition met)
-~;-; ....... : .......: .....*~ (condition met).
9 Ail ~--~ ............. ~: .... :~"~'~ (co ditio met)
! 0. All parking must be screened from neighboring property lines.
11. Parking spaces in front seem excessive; no truck parking with advertising
allowed on site; storing or display of' rental trailers or vehicles not allowed in
parking spaces, or on site; no portable signage allowed.
11. Interior lighted and plastic bubble signage not allowed.
12. Complete color board required; application was missing sample of glass.
13. Larger sample of "Sierra Sunset" accent color needed based upon elevation
note.
14. Lighting proposed appears excessive-:(increased height of light standards
from 25 feet to 30 feet)
15.Explain oversized parking spaces in front of building.
16.Explain window glazing treatment on building.
....... ~ ....... ~ ~'":~:~ (condition met)
17. Veri,~'
18 c~ ..... :~. ~ ........ t..,:,~, ~ ana~er(condition met)
19. State maximum height of building on all exhibits.
20 VerL~ ...... ~. .... ,,a ~,~,~,;~ ~,: ~..v: .......... ::,te.(condition met)
21. '~-'-'-:- ~u ....... ~.~ ...... ~-~ / ..... :~' ~:-~ ' .... : ..... .~ ( diti
met)
Page 1
City of Coppell
Development Review Committee Comments
Planning Department
U-haul International
Site Plan Approval
Southside of S.H. 121, east of N. Denton Tap Road
DRC Date: May 31, 2001 and June 7, 2001
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: June 21, 2001
City Council Meeting: July 10, 2001
1. The use is not allowed in base zoning.
2. The proposed use is not recommended by the Comprehensive Plan; in addition:
3. Your Site Demographics block indicates the zoning of this property as LI. The
correct zoning is HC. You need to change the development standards in that block.
~ ~.;4~ ............ 4,^,~, .... er...ua; .... +;n.~a e,,.. ,-,r~.,~ uge.(CONDITION MET)
(CONDITION MET)
"/ rM .... ;.-..-, ,,11 ..;,-1=.. ~e1...;1,4; ..... ;+~ (CONDITION MET)
................................. ~ ....... plan.
8. Parking requirements are calculated on a gross square footage basis.
MET)
10. Specify glass type for each window area.
11. Explain window-glazing treatment on building.
12. Verify building footprint has grown from 24,810 to 27,360 square feet.
13.80% masonry requirement does not include Dryvit or EFIS; we recommend against
these materials on the 20% non-masonry portion of buildings.
14. Parking spaces in front seem excessive; no truck parking with advertising allowed on
site; storing or display of rental trailers or vehicles not allowed in parking spaces, or
on site; no portable signage allowed.
15. r-.~,..o .~,^. ,.~..., ..... :._., :~.,...,;~.., ....... '"" (CONDITION MET)
16. Explain oversized parking spaces in front of building.
17. State maximum height of building on all exhibits.
18. Insure site plan, elevations, and renderings all match.
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 June 7th Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting.
Each applicant will bring two new sets of revised plats and plans to the June 7th
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.
Applicant will have till noon Tuesday, June 12t~ to resubmit fourteen (14)
folded copies of revised plans, three (3) reduced paper copies (8 1/2 X 11) and
JPEGfiles of each exhibit to the Planning Department.
Page 1 of 1
U-HAUL
FOCUSING ON YOUR
COMMUNITY
The mutually beneficial relationship that
U-Haul'~ has offered other communities
is offered to you as well. With your
input, U-Haul ensures that it builds and
operates retail centers that are clean
and aesthetically pleasing. These
facilities are designed and constructed
in conjunction with the needs and
desires of the neighborhood and
fundamentally support the
surrounding communities and towns
in many ways.
U-Haul ensures that all local objectives
and specifications are met when
creating a retail center. Architecturally
compatible designs and attractive
landscaping enhance and complement
the neighboring area. U-Haul is proud
to be an asset to each of the communi-
ties in which it participates.
D
AN ESTABLISH ED
REPUTATION
SERVIN~ YOUR
COMMUNITY
As we enter a new millennium, U-Haul'"~
continues its efforts to raise standards
and provide a desired and essential
product to the communities in which it
serves. For over 50 years, U-Haul has
been recognized as a symbol of quality
and reliability throughout the United
States and Canada. Millions of self-
moving families have benefited from the
distinctive products and economical
services that U-Haul provides.
Gwinnette place
MALL
Super
SPACES: 22
HELPING TO BUILD
AND ENHANCE YOUR
COMMUNITY
U-uaur~/w~s ~sely w:t
gover~%~-~en~,~~ and public
U-HAUL;
FRIDAY'S
QUALITY ASSURANCES
The U-Haul~ Primary Service Objective is
"to provide a better and better product
and service to more and more people at
a lower and lower cost." This means
that the U-Haul team is committed to
you and your community by building
and operating retail centers with quality
products and services. From large cities
to rural communities across North
America, we welcome a partnership to
serve your community.
-HAUL
U-Haul Refail Cenfer
Coppell,
U-t-iaul Retail Center
Coppell, TX