Witt memo to CC re proposed devCOl'FELL
VIA E-MAIL
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Febmary 20, 2004
Mayor and Council
Jim Witt, City Manager
Proposed Development SW Comer 121 and MacArthur
On Tuesday night you xvill have before you a planned development project on the southwest comer
of 121 and MacArthur. The project encompasses about 26 acres of land as a proposed development
that includes office/warehouse, car repair/service station, and four retail/commercial pad sites. The
P&Z rejected the project at their December meeting on a vote of 5-2. It was held over from your last
meeting at the request of the developer.
The major issues that I have been able to identify in my conversations with staff and the developer's
representative are as follows:
Use of the Property. The Plmming staff feels that this particular comer would be better
suited to office-type use, which would provide a more attractive entry~vay into the City.
Obviously, the developer feels that this being a high traffic comer, service/commercial
uses such as the gas station and the auto repair are more appropriate. The retail pad sites
are not of a major concern to the staff, but the office/warehouse facilities are also. There is
also a general concern among the Planning staff that the office/warehouse facilities would
not be complimentary to the homes in Vista Ridge Estates. The previously approved plan
showed office on the far western portion of the site, and staff feels that is what the City
should be targeting on this particular parcel. The developer's perception is that they have
a similar product with a slightly different design on the north side of 121 in Lewisville,
and feel this office/warehouse use is market friendly under today's conditions. Traditional
office space in the Dallas/Fort Worth area is presently registering approximately a 25%
vacancy rate. The developer therefore feels that this product makes more sense in today's
market given their success on the north side of 121. The land use issue then is primarily
the overriding problem on the site. Staff feels the CIVIC report clearly identified this as
Mayor and Council
February 20, 2004
Page Two
an entryway to the City and, therefore, a higher use such as office is more desirable than a
gas station and adjacent car repair garage.
Landscaping and Buffering. There are major issues regarding the landscaping and
buffering of this project from adjacent neighborhoods. The major issue in terms of
buffering seems to be the wall along Forest Hill Drive. The developer is resisting at times
to have a 6-foot screen wall along said drive. He, though, is willing to comply with at
least a 6-foot wall adjacent to the Vistas of Coppell Subdivision. The wall along Forest
Hill will parallel a street, not adjacent to residential. Planning staff feels very strongly that
the wall is needed to provide an appropriate buffer. The applicant has been working with
the special district that maintains the levy to supplement its landscaping on the site by
attempting to do some landscaping along the levy in a manner which will provide a further
natural buffer between the Peninsula and this project. There are other issues such as wall
articulation and overall landscaping that will be outlined in greater detail at the meeting on
Tuesday evening.
Neighborhood Resistance. In general the neighborhood has been opposed to the project,
essentially because they feel a higher and better use is desirable. There has been some
discussion about a hotel or high quality office space by the neighbors. They are concerned
that their view is going to be ruined by this development, and feel that the
office/warehouse and service station being proposed will have a negative effect on their
neighborhood and possibly their property values. While I have not spoken directly with
the neighbors involved, a set of protest letters are being emaiIed to you. The distance from
the Peninsulas to this particular site is approximately 500 feet, according to the Planning
staff. Of course, some of this site is immediately adjacent to the residences in the Vistas
of Coppell.
Developer Request. Another issue that has developed is whether the developer is
requesting this PD in order to circumvent many of the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, or is it being used as a functional planning tool in order to develop a large tract
with multiple uses. The latter is what the PD ordinance was designed for in order to
provide greater flexibility in developing larger tracts of land. Along with the inherent
problems on this site, the developer feels that the staff has been less than forthcoming, and
at times has shown partiality towards the neighborhood. We have attempted to deal with
the applicant and their representatives in a straightforward manner. At times it is very
difficult when sides are deeply entrenched such as the neighborhood and applicant, for the
staff to stay out of the middle of such disagreements. Our job is to provide information,
and treat both parties with respect and, I believe we have done that to the best of our
abilities.
Mayor and Council
February 20, 2004
Page Three
Economic Impact. Our Economic Development Coordinator, Andrea Roy, has prepared
an impact comparison using the present value of the property, the proposed uses, and
straight office. This item is being emailed to you along with this memo.
Legal Opinion. Also forwarded with this memo is a legal opinion from the City Attorney
for your review.
In closing, the neighborhood has also accused me of being "pro developer." This is an
unfortunate occurrence, but due to the animosity which developed after the December P&Z
meeting, I felt it best that I act as a conduit between the developer and the P&Z.
JW:kb
Enclosure