Loading...
NCH protest of P&Z recomm.NCH ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP 2727 CHEMSEARCH BLVD. IRVING, TEXAS 75062 June 1, 1994 Honorable Mayor Tom Morton City of Coppell TX 75019 RE: Zoning Ca~e #ZC-559(CH) - NCH Corporation Dear Mayor Morton: Please allow me to thank you in advance for your attention to the details of what surely has become a much more complicated zoning case than anyone intended. Since we have been interfacing primarily with City staff, the Planning Commission and concerned citizens up to this point, I think it would be helpful to explain how we arrived at the present situation. The NCH Corporation is a Fortune 500 company with operations around the wodd. Our World Headquarters is in Irving, TX. We manufacture and market a vadety of specialty maintenance and industrial products. We purchased this 141 + acr§ tract in 1979 with the intention of relocating our headquarters to Coppeil. At the time, w6 had outgrown our Irving property and needed a larger, quality location for our operations. The Coppell area appealed to us for many reasons but pdmary among them was the quality of life aspects that we felt it could provide for us and our people. Although we knew we needed "Light Industrial' zoning for our office and distribution related operations, we did not want to be isolated from the community in an anonymous "Industrial Area." We carefully chose this property because it contained both the necessary Light Industrial zoning to locate our facilities, and Multi-Family zoning (as well as being near Single-Family areas) to provide for a variety of quality housing options for our people. The zoning is now as it was when we purchased the property; we have never requested a zoning change. In fact, we have always thought that the current zoning made a lot of sense with the MF aligned along Coppell Road, intended as a transition use and buffer between the Single Family uses to our east and the clearly incompatible Light Industrial to the west. As it turned out, property adjacent to our existing Irving facilities subsequently became availal31e to us and for economic reasons, we decided to expand there. However, we still feel the above mentioned qualities will be important to the future use of this property, whether it is for one of our other divisions and/or to possibly attract another company to locate here. TELEPHONE A'C 214-438-0211, TELEX 73336. CABLE NATCHEM IRVING, TELECOPY A/C 214-43~01.6 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 152170, IRVING, TX 75015-2170 Mayor Tom Morton - 2 - June 1, 1994 We are not developers and as we own the land free and clear, we are under no pressure to "make a quick buck," as evidenced by our patience to date. We are proud of our reputation as a quality conscious company. That pdde extends to our relations with the communities in which we have facilities. We have cooperated with Coppell many times over the years, such as agreeing to the relocation of the proposed routing of Freeport Parkway through our property and also the dedication of a utility easement to accommodate others. In these cases, we were glad to accommodate because the changes were for the "greater good" of the community. Now, however, we are being asked to accept a major rezoning of our property in such a way that is clearly not good planning. This is not to say, however, that we aren't flexible and more than willing to consider suggestions to improve the compatibility of our zoning to our neighbors. Quite to the contrary, even though they will be quite costly to us, we have freely agreed t® incorporate many "protective" elements into the plan, all of which were suggested to us by either City staff, the Planning commission, or citizens. Again, we have agreed to these because we saw they represented good planning and are for the community benefit. · Build a fifty (50') foot landscaped buff. e/along our entire frontage with Coppell Road. This buffer would include a six (63 food solid masonry screenin! wail; grassed berrr~ and tree plantirlgs consistent with the City's Streetscape Plan; and a meandednc~ sidewal~ connecting the residential areas to our north with the Historic area to our south. · Build a thirty (303 foot landscaped buyer along our common boundary with the adjacent properties to our southee~t, west of Coppell Road. This buffer would include an eight (8'7' foot solid masonry screening v~lail; plus gra~s and tree plantings consistent with the City's Landscape Ordinance. · Move the 29 a,~-re area zoned "MF-~" to the south and west from its current location along i~oppell Road to a new configuration which focuses it toward Freeport Parkway. All acce,~ would be from Freep(;Ft; a thoroughfare designed to easily accommodate this use. Additionally, we have agreed to restricl~;all non- emergency access directly to or from our property and Coppeil Road (both the "MF-2" and the are~ zoned "LI"). · The landscaped buffe~ would be required to be built a~ the adjacent prop..tt, rties are deveiope~l, controlled through the City's permitting process. · The property own~ would be responsible foK the maintenanr, e of these improvements, not the City. At the March meeting of the Commission, the Planning Director recommended approval of the revised plan cOntaining these elements. The Commission indicated they felt it was the best of the three options discussed, but didn~ know how they could be legally assured we would actually implement all of these protective elements. After much Mayor Tom Morton - 3 - June 1, 1994 discussion with the City Attorney concerning our commitment and the City's guarantee of our commitment, we all agree~ that the buffer strip,should be zoned as a specific "PD" (Planned Development), spelling out exactly what elements are required and tying their implementation to the development of the adjacent property. The above requirements were read into the record by the Planning Director. The Commission voted to ask us to prepare a "PD" Ordinance containing these requirements and to return the following month. Again, we were happy to do 'lso and, at considerable expense, we had our consult_ants prepare the detailed site plans and surveys required by the "PJ~" Ordinance, reflecting all these requirements. Additionally, we were approached during the week before the April hearing by staff and a Commission member and asked to further buffer the Multi-Family from Coppell Road by dedicating a parl~to the City at the eastern end of the "MF-2" ar~, which we agreed to do. Then, at the April hearin~l, after having agreed to all that was asked of us, imagine our surprise when the commission votechto recommend to Council, not this carefully thought through plan, but rather to change the zoning to all Light Indu~l, effectively eliminating all the buffer element~. We realize that there is considerable citizen opposition to all Multi-Family development in Coppell, but there are also many citizens who agreed with the plan. Unfortunately, only a few were brave enough to say so at the Public Hearing. In their zeal to rid themselves of the "criminals who are likely to live in an apartment," some of the opponents are forgetting that Coppell Road is a ~ road and is not designed to have industrial uses fronting on it. To have loading docks and truck traffic impacting Coppell Road instead of the landscaped buffer we have agreed to build.., well, it just doesn~ make sense and we don't believe it could seriously be considered good planning. We believe the fears of Multi-Family development are completely unfounded, spread by the actions of a few well-meaning citizens. There are many examples in the Metroplex of great neighborhoods containing both Single-Family homes and quality apartments, populated by much the same kind of people, differing only in the type of housing they need or prefer. As an example, the neighborhood along Parkway Blvd. in Coppell, with both houses and apartments, seems to be a great area. Certainly, our plan would provide for a great deal more separation and buffer than exists there. From an economic point of view our property, containing 112 acres of Industrial zoning along with 29 acres of Multi-Family zoning would more than "pay it's own way" in City and school taxes, and should be an important contributor to the economic development of Coppell. Mayor Tom Morton -4- June 1, 1994 To make NCH's position very clear, I want to reemphasize the point that we only wish to maintain our current zoning (as is or relocated) in order that we can keep options open for the future. We do NOT currently have plans to develop any class of apartments on our property. Furthermore, neither the City staff nor the Planning and Zoning Commission have stated what "changed conditions" have given rise to this taking of our zoning rights. It is the intention of NCH to maintain a cooperative atmosphere with the City of Coppell. We ask you to please carefully consider ail the quality elements of our proposal, for we truly believe it represents good planning and is in the best interests of Coppall. We would be happy to meet with you individually to answer any questions or address any concerns you might have. Thank you. Sincerely, NCH CORPORATION/ Don Moulton, P.E. Director of Corporate Real Estate City of Coppell: Jim Wttt Norman Alexander Lanny Mayo Mirth Reilman Candy Sheehan Danny Watson Peckham-Young, Inc.: Curtis Young Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal: David Drumm FIo McFadden Stahly Ron Robertson Zoning Case #ZC-5$9(CH) - NCH Corporation June 1, 1994 CITIZEN INPUT KEY POINTS Concern 1. TRAFFIC ON COPPELL ROAD - School Times - Rush Hour NCH Response 1. a. Move MF frontage to proposed Freeport Parkway b. Limit Coppeil Road to only emergency access for M F c. Freeport Parkway will be a 4-lane divided road leading to 1-635 and SH121 2. BUFFER BETWEEN USES 2. a. 50' "Green Belt'' with wall along Coppell Road b. Reduce Coppell Road MF frontage by 60% c. 30' landscaped setback with wall between Loch Lane SF d. Proposed 5 acre park betwen MF and Coppell Road 3. ADJACENT ZONING 3. a. Coppell Road frontage only facing Commercial zoning b. Loch Lane SF uses now screened from warehouse uses. 4. DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCES -Apartments Come First 4. a. Freeport Parkway must be built to access M F frontage, resulting in developed LI sites also b. Industrial demand will trigger and pay to build Freeport Parkway IMPACT ON SCHOOLS - Too Many Kids Cause Overcrowding - Not Pay Their Way IMPACT ON CITY UTIUTIES - Cause shortage of water or sewer capacity 7. NOISE IMPACT FROM DIFW AIRPORT §. GOPPELL ROAD IS A RESIDENTIAL ROAD, NOT SUITABLE TO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 5. a. Adjacent single family homes pay for 40% of school children from SF use b. NCH total project (LI & MF) pay for 146% of school children from MF use c. School district confirms that if a school becomes overcrowded, they will build an additional school. 6. a. City Engineer confirms City utilities are sized to easily serve a fully builtout 29 acre MF-2 site. 7. a. The MF sites are completely outside of the airport's noise contours, including the new runway. b. M F is less affectd by noise than SF c. MF buildings can be more easily and economically protected from noise than SF 8. a. We agree! b. Have offered to build and maintain a landscape buffer at our expense. Zoning Case ~.C-559(CH) - NCH Corporation June 1, 1994 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS · Build a fifty (50') foot landscaped buffer along our entire frontage with Coppell Road. This buffer would include a six (6') food solid masonry screening wall; grassed berms and tree plantings consistent with the City's Streetscape Plan; and a meandering sidewalk connecting the residential areas to our north with the Historic area to our south. · Build a thirty (30') foot landscaped buffer along our common boundary with the adjacent properties to our southeast, west of Coppell Road. This buffer would include an eight (8') foot solid masonry screening wall; plus grass and tree plantings consistent with the City's Landscape Ordinance. Move the 29 acre area zoned "MF-2" to the south and west from its current location along Coppell Road to a new configuration which focuses it toward Freeport Parkway. Ail access would be from Freeport; a thoroughfare designed to easily accommodate this use. Additionally, we have agreed to restrict all non-emergency access directly to or from our property and Coppell Road (both the "MF-2" and the area zoned "LI"). · The landscaped buffers would be required to be built as the adjacent properties are developed, controlled through the City's permitting process. · The property owner would be responsible for the maintenance of these improvements, not the City.