PD-199 commentsCOPPEI L
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
Jim Witt, City Manager
Gary Sieb, Director of Planning
Marcie Diamond, Assistant Director of Planning
April 6, 2004
RE: PD-199
The following are City Council's verbatim comments, from the February 24, 2004, public
hearing, concerning PD-199, as transcribed by the City Secretary's office. The applicant
resubmitted the site plan package on April 2, 2004. The following are staff's comments and
responses to the applicant's adherence to the Council's remarks. The comments that have been
specifically addressed are noted with underlining and enumerated, as needed.
Tim Brancheau:
The concern I have is when we started thinking of this concept, we had the development on the
North side of 121 to look at as the prototype of the building that was going to go in there and that
to me was more office orientated rather than an office/warehouse orientation and that is the
concern that I have. I think we have gone from an office, mainly an office type product to an
office/warehouse type product (a) and that is the concern that I have. And I think that when we
do that, that hopefully some of these height issues (b) and concerns that the citizens have will be
addressed at that time.
Staff's comments:
(a) The revised PD Conditions state the following:
i. The "storage and warehousing areas" of the Warehouse/Distribution use shall not
exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total aggregate square footage of building area
for each respective Tract. In addition, no more than fifty (50%) of any one (1)
building shall be used for "storage and warehousing".
The proposed product remains office/warehouse - with a maximum of 50%
warehousing.
(b) All of the buildings have been reduced by 2feet in height, with the tallest buildings
(30. 5 feeO closest to Forest Hill Drive.
Jayne Peters:
Along with Councilmember Brancheau concerns in terms of an actual percent specified
warehousing, office, manufacturing assembly (a), I am also concerned about also the height of
Page 1 of 7
the building(b); access off of Forest Hill (c); both ingress and egress; and absolutely no truck
traffic off of that particular access; number of dock doors per tenant (d); further clarification on
all the conditions that Mn Ratliff discussed between the developer of this project and the
Owner's Association(e) and I'd like to see those specified as conditions in terms of what you are
able to address and what just isn't feasible, but to spell those out. Also, I'd like to have staff
address the maintenance of the levee trees and the planting of the levee trees and also the
irrigation (fl because I don't think there is any there right now, in terms of who is going to pick
up the dime on that. Also, address the sienaee issues (e) in terms of compliance with our sign
ordinance.
Staff's comments:
(a) The amount of warehousing is addressed above, however the percentage of
manufacturing is not addressed.
(b) All of the buildings have been reduced by 2 feet in height, with the tallest buildings
(30.5 feeO closest to Forest Hill Drive.
(c) Two access points have been retained along Forest Hill Drive; however "head-ache"
bars are being proposed to limit the access to vehicular only, semi-truck traffic will be
prohibited. Fire Marshal Oates reviewed the concept plan on April 5, 2004, in relation
to the adequacy of fire lane and emergency access and offered the following
comments:
· Forest Hill D~ive will not be needed for fire protection for the office/warehouse
area; however, the proposed eastern driveway will need to be revised to provide
larger turning radii to access the retail areas.
· Assuming buildings 1 and 2 in Tract 1 will be thefirst office/warehouse buildings
to be constructed, two points of access will be required from S.H. 121 connecting
these buildings with the frontage road. These 24-foot fire lanes, meeting ail
turning radii criteria, will be required to be dedicated and constructed with the first
phase of development.
· Tract 4 (gas station and auto repair) will require three points of access to provide
required fire and emergency protection. The driveway along S.H. 121, as well as
the two access points from MacArthur will be required. The fire lane needs to be
extended to connect these points of access parallel to S.H. 121, encircling the gas
pumps on the north side (assuming the canopy is greater than 14feet in heighO
and extending to the two driveways on MacArthur Blvd. The stub-out fire lane
between the car repair attd the c-store/car wash will not be needed.
Additional requirements may be identified during the detail site plan and platting
process.
(d) In terms of dock doors per tenant, the following PD condition has been included:
ii. Service doors for the respective buildings may be either drive-in (grade level), double
personal doors, or dock high. The dock high service doors shall not exceed a ratio of one
(1) dock high service door for every eight thousand (8,000) square feet of the total
aggregate building square footage of each respective Tract. In addition, no one (1)
building shall have more that ten (10) dock high service doors.
This condition does not tie the dock doors to the tenant, but the entire tract, allowing
for up to 11 on Tract One and 15 on Tract Two, with a maximum 10 dock high per
building, and no limitation on number of drive-in or double person service doors.
(e) On April 5, 2004, I received an e-mall from Richard Scott, President of the Peninsulas
of CoppeH HOA stating:
Page 2 of 7
"1 don't believe that any of the HOA's leadership has been contacted by any of the
developers. If I understood the City Council's instructions, I expected the developers to
work with the HOA's."
To address the tree plantings in the levee area, the following conditions have been
added:
The proposed Planned Development provides for landscape buffer plantings to be installed
along what is commonly referenced as, the "levee" at a ratio of one (1), three inch (3") caliper
tree per every fifteen (15) linear feet of PD frontage along Forest Hill. The irrigation system
will be installed by the PD applicant and applicant will provide a one (1) year maintenance
agreement on all trees. The City of Coppell has agreed to maintain the irrigation system,
upon installation and acceptance, furnish the irrigation water and perform the necessary
routine maintenance on these buffer plantings.
In response to this proposed PD Condition, John Elias, Park Operations Manager,
offered the following recommendations:
"After reviewing the plans for the I4sta Point H/MacArthur Ridge project with Brad
Reid, the Parks Department has the following comments regarding the proposed
landscape buffer along the "levee".
1) The plans are inaccurate, the sidewalk, as well as existing trees, are not shown
along the south side of Forest Hill Drive.
2) No trees should be planted between the sidewalk and the street.
3) The plans call for a continuous row of(52) 3" Austrian Pines. I would recommend
that they mix in some over story trees to break up the hedge effect. It will be very
difficult to maintain a straight row of continuous pines without having gaps down
the road. I would suggest planting an over story tree such as Bur Oak between
every 5th Austrian Pine (or 75').
4) The Parks Department does not support taking on any maintenance associated with
these tree plantings. The developer should be responsible for maintenance of the
entire area of the proposed tree planting. This would include mowing the area
proposed from Forest Hill Dr. south to the hike & bike trail, tree maintenance on
all newly planted trees and all costs associated with the installation and
maintenance of the irrigation system, as well as paying for the water.
5) The Parks Department would also recommend that the turf in the proposed area of
the tree plantings be irrigated, as well."
However, the alternative recommended by the City would be to provide these trees
and/or a screening wall along the north side of Forest Hill Drive, within the subject
property, so as not to blur the lines between private lands and public maintenance. It
appears from reviewing the site and landscape plans initially submitted, which
contained Finished Floor Elevations and topography lines, site grading will be
required for drainage, and the floor elevations of the proposed buildings will actually
only be 1 to 2 feet below the curb line along Forest Hill Drive. Therefore, full-height
screening on-site wouM be required.
Page 3 of 7
To address signage issues the following condition was added concerning monument
i. The side yard signage setback shall be reduced by five feet (5') from seventy-five
feet (75') to seventy feet (70') such that Tract 3 shall be entitled to a monument sign
along S.H. 121.
ii. Tract 4 will be allowed two (2) monument signs, each of which will display the name
of both the convenience store and the automotive service center. The square footage
of each above referenced sign shall not exceed sixty (60) square feet.
They are requesting basically three variances, two to sign setbacks (separation) and
one to allow an additional sign on Tract 4, the gas station/car repair tract. However,
there is still a conflict between the PD conditions and the revised site platt. The PD
conditions include the excerpt from the Sign Ordinance, which would only permit two
monument signs on Tract 1 (office/warehouse tract) but three are shown on the site
plan. They also do not specify which signs would be 40- and 60-square feet. Refer to
original staff report for detail discussion on this issue.
In terms of attached signs, the applicant has resubmitted a rather lengthy sign
criterion, and as discussed in the original report, much of the information is not
applicable to this zoning action (landlord/tenant issues), and there are conflicts (i.e.
logo size) with the Sign Ordinance. They have submitted revised color elevations of the
car repair and gas station, where they eliminated many of the non-conforming signs;
however, Great American has 40-linear feet of frontage on S.H. 121, and 40-square
feet of signage is permitted. However, 65.83 of attached signage is shown, exceeding
the permitted signage by 60%. The food mart and the car wash are in compliance with
the ordinance.
Diana Raines:
I would echo both the prior comments from the Councilmembers. I guess the only other thing is
to make sure that the (8) eight-foot fence is completely around, I think that was stated in there
that that would be, on a part of it, but could that be completely around the entire along Forest
Hills?
Staff's comments:
The wall adjacent to the alley shared with the Vistas has been increased to 8 feet;
however, it has not been extended along Forest Hill Drive, and it appears to stop short
of its intersection with Forest Hill, leaving one lot, which is not separated by the alley
without a wall. The applicant has stated that the levee plantings and the difference in
elevations will address the screening issues.
Billy Faught:
Again the percentage, an exact percentage for warehousing (a); the access on Forest Hill (b); and
the dock doors rather than a per square footage(c), I'd rather see exactly where dock doors are
going to be, which will help us establish sight lines and if there are sight lines to any of the
residences(d) I would also have a concem about the rear view of the buildings(e). I've heard
Mr. Ratliff say that they are considering or are going to add some architectural features to the
Page 4 of 7
rear. 09 I see no renderings, I want to know exactly what the people behind in those houses, are
going to be looking at before I say yea or nay.
Staff's comments:
(a) The revised PD Conditions state the following:
ii. The "storage and warehousing areas" of the Warehouse/Distribution use shall not
exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total aggregate square footage of building area
for each respective Tract. In addition, no more than fifty (50%) of any one (l)
building shall be used for "storage and warehousing".
The proposed product remains office/warehouse - with a maximum of 50%
warehousing.
(b) Two access points have been retained along Forest Hill Drive; however
"head-ache" bars are being proposed to limit the access to vehicular
semi-truck traffic will be prohibited. See above for Fire Marshall Oates'
comments.
(c) In terms of dock doors per tenant, the following PD condition has been
included:
a. Service doors for the respective buildings may be either drive-in (grade level),
double personal doors, or dock high. The dock high service doors shall not
exceed a ratio of one (1) dock high service door for every eight thousand (8,000)
square feet of the total aggregate building square footage of each respective
Tract. In addition, no one (1) building shall have more that ten (10) dock high
service doors.
This condition does not tie the dock doors to the tenant, but the entire tract,
allowing for up to 11 on Tract One and 15 on Tract Two, with a maximum
10 dock high doors per building, and no limitation on number of drive-in or
double person service doors.
(d) The applicant will present various sight-line studies at the public hearing.
(e) Revised colored conceptual rear elevations showing at grade and dock high
doors has been submitted.
09 Minimal architectural features have been added, including reveals and color
scheme.
Thom Suhy:
I think we have covered just about everything that I had concern with. One thing I would like
addressed is the Iandscape screening itself. I guess the differences in being that we feel that
we've got enough trees yet we don't have them in the right places. I would like to make sure that
the coverage is up to what the P & Z and the City require.
Staff's comments:
The applicant is meeting the Landscape Ordinance in terms of total square footage of
land devoted to landscaping and total number of trees; however, they have generally
placed this landscaping along the perimeter of the tract instead of internal to the
property, and they are not meeting the landscape requirements on the individual tracts,
but they are on an overall basis. The specific variances requested to the Landscape
Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance are included in the following PD conditions:
Page 5 of 7
The proposed Planned Development entails the elimination of the ten-foot (109
landscape setbacks, required per Ordinance 12-34-8(c) between interior property lines
on the following Tracts:
Tract 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
The Planned Development will continue to meet all other perimeter landscape buffer
requirements along street frontages and along the residential adjacency.
The proposed Planned Development provides Tree Retribution for the site will be
applied towards the acreage of the Planned Development and not on an individual
Tract-by-Tract basis. Tree Retribution for all protected trees that are removed will be
mitigated by new tree plantings of either - increased caliper inches or individual trees
in lieu of the 50% tree planting and 50% monetary payment.
The proposed Planned Development provides that landscaping requirements will be
calculated on the overall acreage of the Planned Development as opposed to a Tract-
by-Tract basis.
Bill York:
I too have no problem with shutting offall ingress on Forest Hill at all, what ! want to do is make
sure that the Fire Marshal is OK with that. I believe that all of my concerns were addressed by
everyone previous, so what I am going to do so that this is recorded correctly, I'm going to ask
our City Attorney to read the motion into the record.
Staff's comments:
Two access points have been retained along Forest Hill Drive; however "head-ache" bars are
being proposed to limit the access to vehicular only, semi-truck traffic will be prohibited. See
above for Fire Marshal Oates' comments.
Doug Stover:
I would just like to comment that what we are doing here in the nature of this particular vote is
such that it ~vould require a unanimous 6-0 and the only way that this could stand a chance of
passing is if every person agreed with this in its entirety. So what Mn York is offering here is to
try to identify the things that are creating consternation for anybody that would vote in favor of it
so until all Councilmembers are clear and comfortable with all the different points being brought
up tonight, there is not a chance in the world of this passing. So this is what we are trying to do,
just try to air the concerns of all the Councilmembers present, ask staff to go back with the
developer and see if these issues can be resolved and brought back to another meeting for
consideration of a vote.
Something I personally feel, I'm a Forest Hill Drive advocate, I would like to see that back drive
closed off completely. I don't care if its local traffic or not, go on the bypass and go on the
concrete (a). If you work there then you are approaching it that you are right in the City and you
just have a little bit of road to flip around on MacArthur. Clarification of sight lines the entire
length of Forest Hills (b), not just from any point, just so there is not any "disingenuous
remarks", make sure that the sight lines are for the entire run and all those items that the items
that were tentative that they be absolutes one way or the other, that there is no uncertainty as to
whether we are going to do such thing as (8) eight-foot walls (c) and things like that.
Page 6 of 7
Staff's comments:
(a) Two access points have been retained along Forest Hill Drive; however "head-ache"
bars are being proposed to limit the access to vehicular only, semi-truck traffic will be
prohibited. See above for Fire Marshal Oates' comments.
(b) Sight-Line studies will be presented by the applicant at the April 13, 2004, Public
Hearing.
(c.) The wall adjacent to the alley shared with the Vistas has been increased to 8 feet;
however, it has not been extended along Forest Hill Drive, and it appears to stop short
of its intersection with Forest Hill, leaving one lot, which is not separated by the alley
without a wall. The applicant has stated that the levee plantings and the difference in
elevations will address the screening issues.
Page 7 of 7