January P& Z Staff Report
ITEM # 5
Page 1 of 8
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PD-295-HC, Archway 121
P&Z HEARING DATE: November 15, 2018 Held under advisement until January 17, 2019
C.C. HEARING DATE: February 12, 2019
STAFF REP.: Marcie Diamond, Assistant Director of Community Development/Planning
LOCATION: S.H. 121 and Freeport Parkway, S.E.C.
SIZE OF AREA: 8.7 acres of property
CURRENT ZONING: HC (Highway Commercial)
REQUEST: A zoning change request to PD-295-HC (Planned Development-295-Highway
Commercial), to establish a Concept Site Plan for gas station, hotel, retail,
restaurants and office uses on 8.7 acres and a Detail Site Plan for a Convenience
Food Store with gas pumps on 2.14 acres.
APPLICANT: Owner: Engineer:
Archway 121 Coppell Ltd. Chase Helm
13430 Northwest Frwy, Ste 395 Winkelmann & Associates
Houston, Texas 77040 6750 Hillcrest Plaza Drive
214-697-1807 Dallas, Texas 75230
Email: ewhawk@archwayprop.com (972) 490-7090
Email: chase@winkelmann.com
HISTORY: In 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission called a series of public hearings to
determine the proper zoning along the limited frontages the city of Coppell has
along freeways. The intent of this initiative, which was adopted by City Council,
was to revise the 1996 Future Land Use Plan and to rezone these properties from
Light Industrial to Highway Commercial to “allow the land owners significant
flexibly in development options to take advantage of the highway access while
assuring compliance with the vision for the City’s most visible corridors”. The 2030
Comprehensive Plan reinforced this vision by designating this property as Freeway
Special District.
HISTORIC COMMENT: This property does not have any historic significance.
ITEM # 5
Page 2 of 8
TRANSPORTATION: SH 121 is a state highway built to standard.
Freeport Parkway is a six-lane divided thoroughfare.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North: vacant land – HC (Highway Commercial)
South: vacant land – HC (Highway Commercial)
East: office/warehouse – PD-272 LI (Light Industrial)
West: SH 121 and office/warehouse – LI (Light Industrial)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Coppell 2030 Comprehensive Master Plan shows this property as
suitable Freeway Special District.
DISCUSSION ON REVISED SUBMITTAL
On November 15th , the Planning and Zoning Commission held this case under advisement,
with the public hearing left open, to allow the applicant time to address the issues and
concerns raised by staff and discussed at the public hearing. The applicant has:
Revised QT site plan by placing the convenience store at the corner of SH 121 and
Freeport Parkway and the gas canopy along Freeport Parkway.
Revised the Concept Plan by replacing the 3,900 square foot drive-through restaurant
with a 8,400 square foot retail building and increased the proposed office from a two-
story 34,300 to a 4-5 story 73,720 square foot office building with structured parking
and provided a pedestrian plaza area connecting the retail to the hotel.
Revised the Conceptual Building Elevations to incorporate building materials from
the QT and added architectural features such as metal canopies.
Increased buffers along street frontages from 15’ to 20’ to meet ordinance
requirements.
Saved one 22” pecan tree, but still clear cutting the remainder of the property.
Added Archway 121 Entry Sign(s).
Variances are still being requested to the Zoning Ordinance to allow significant deficits in
landscaping in the Concept Plan areas and variances to sign and canopy materials to allow the QT.
The proposed built-out has increased from 65,773 square feet to 107,520 square feet. The Traffic
Impact Analysis will be performed prior to the submission of a subdivision plat to ensure all needed
traffic improvements (i.e. driveway locations and deceleration lanes) are provided. It is staff’s
understanding that the applicant’s Traffic Engineer will be at the public hearing to address traffic
issues.
Staff reviewed the revised submission through the DRC process, and generated four pages of
technical comments, some were incorporated into this submission, other remain outstanding. The
outstanding technical comments are summarized below.
Concept Plan
The most significant issues with the concept plan is the significant shortage in the amount of
landscaping proposed for the future concept plan areas. Staff understands that at this time there
are no known users for the remainder of the property, but cannot support the approval of a Concept
Plan with such a significant deficit (approximately 26%) in landscaped areas.
ITEM # 5
Page 3 of 8
The landscaping proposed for Tract A, the QT site (Detail Site Plan), exceeds the minimum
requirement for landscaped areas, however, the other three tracts are severely deficient, most
notably, in the non-vehicular (open space) requirement. Specifically, within Tract D, the hotel tract,
the pool/plaza area is being used to fulfill approximately 90 percent of the non-vehicular open space
requirement. Within Tract B, the two retail buildings, the non-vehicular open space is 100% plaza
area (hardscape), with no additional green areas as required by the Landscape Ordinance. There
are also deficiencies in interior landscaping and buffer area widths. Finally, there are discrepancies
on the size of buildings and landscape areas from plan to plan which calls into question the validity
of the calculations as presented. For example, depending on the exhibit, the landscape buffer
between the retail and hotel tracts varies in width from 14 to 20 feet. If this area is intended to be
an amenity to increase the pedestrian feel and aesthetics, it would be reasonable to increase, not
decrease this greenspace area. It is reasonable to assume that these lots will be sold to individual
end-users/developers and compliance with the regulations of the Landscape Ordinance is essential.
The compatibility in architectural design between the QT and the remainder of the property is
improved from the previous submittal, understanding that design details like cornices, metal
accents (with and without stripes), store front color/materials, etc. will be determined at the time of
Detail Site Plan approval through the PD Amendment Process. However, the question remains will
there be standards for attached signs to be of a consistent architectural theme? Are the QT attached
signs setting the standard for this development? The applicant’s request also states that:
“The colors and materials used for façade on Exhibits B1-B3 in no way intended to preclude
the use of architectural features of National Branding to define users in their own fashion”
Staff is unclear as to the intent if this statement. Finally, the Color Board submitted indicates a
dark grey stacked stone, two earth tone reds, six shades of grey brick and metal accents. Which of
these materials are intended for the QT development needs to be defined.
Various exhibits and renderings indicate a proposed brick wall(s) and a development sign, but there
is inconsistency as to the location and placement. Will there be decorative walls along SH 121 as
indicated on the Concept Plan? If so size, color, materials, height, etc. will need to be specified on
the site and landscape plans.
QT Detail Site Plan
The approval of the Detail Site Plan for the QT would require the following variances to the Zoning
Ordinance:
Variance to allow two monument signs, where only one 60-square foot sign is permitted, and
they appear to be internally illuminated. As noted above, a “Archway 121” development
sign is also proposed for this lot.
An attached, 121 square foot wall sign along the front façade of the QT building, exceeds the
maximum permitted by the sign ordinance by 29 square feet.
The red metal canopies on the buildings are prohibited in the Zoning Ordinance.
There appears to be window signage which covers 100% of the window, whereas, a
maximum of 10% is permitted by ordinance, and
To allow 20 sq. ft. button signs on the gas canopy, but it is unclear how many signs are being
requested.
As stated above, the Landscaping on this tract appears to exceed the minimum required by the
Zoning Ordinance, however there are discrepancies in the calculations in the Detail Plan and as
portrayed in the Concept Plan.
ITEM # 5
Page 4 of 8
Although color renderings have been submitted for this QT, Building Elevations with the materials
specified, is also required. The elevations need to specify which of the 9 brick samples included on
the color board are proposed for this first phase development.
Finally, the following is a partial list of other outstanding technical and drafting conditions as
identified through the DRC process and remain unresolved.
1. Where are the monument signs/decorative walls proposed to be located included on the
“Development Branding” exhibit, if they are the unlabeled crescent shaped elements on the
plan, then the would require several variances to the Sign Ordinance in terms of number of
signs, placement and size, etc. Need additional detail as to size, materials, colors, illumination
etc.
2. Need additional detail on the patio/decorative paving area to be provided, if for outdoor
seating then it need to be noted and parked for that use.
3. What is the width of the landscaped area between Tracts B & D, it is noted as three different
widths.
4. Loading Areas (minimum of 12 feet by 30 feet) will be required for the hotel as well as the
office.
5. Fire Lanes need to be labeled Fire Lanes and Mutual Access Easements, and shall have a
minimum radii of 30 ft. inside and 54 ft. outside.
6. Need to provide additional detail on the proposed 4 story office, including what is the
maximum height.
7. Provide clarity if the QT will be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system, as
required for buildings 5,000 sq. f.t or greater. If so, then a riser room (minimum of 56 sq. ft.)
must be included to accommodate fire/life safety systems. The FDC must be located on the
building adjacent to the riser room, and the fuel islands shall be visible from POS.
8. Label/ title the Phase 1 exhibit, as such
9. Rectify all discrepancies in size of buildings, landscape calculations, etc.
10. Revise Concept Plan, Landscape Plan and Tree Survey to be the same scale and orientation.
QT plans should also have the same orientation
11. Submit Building Elevations for the QT with materials specified.
12. Correct the parking counts for the QT on the Concept and Phase One Exhibits
13. Concept Utility Plans need to be revised to
a. include all proposed utilities (water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer) for proposed
development (not just for QT),
b. include sanitary sewer size,
c. make connection between the proposed and existing, and
d. add vault with double detector check at the Northwestern connection.
14. QT Utility Plans need to be revised to
a. include to include size for water main loop and sanitary sewer service
b. include the storm sewer system, and
c. the proposed fire hydrant south of QT will be required with QT phase.
REVISED RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Per direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the staff has worked with and advised
the applicant on revisions required and ordinance requirements, and after review and analysis
of the revised application, staff continues to recommend DENIAL of PD-295-HC, Archway 121,
for a Concept Plan for gas station, hotel, retail, restaurants and office uses on 8.6 acres and a
Detail Plan on 2.14 acres for a Convenience Food Store with Gas Pumps.
ITEM # 5
Page 5 of 8
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the request
2. Recommend disapproval of the request
3. Recommend modification of the request
4. Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date
REVISED ATTACHMENTS:
1. Applicant’s Letter – Revised January 8, 2019
2. Concept Site Plan
3. Concept Phasing Exhibit
4. Concept Overall Landscape Plan (5 pages)
5. Concept Overall Landscape Rendering
6. Concept Tree Survey
7. Concept Retail Office Elevations
8. Concept Wall Signs (Branding Development)
9. QT Site Plan
10. QT Paving Plan
11. QT Landscape Plan
12. QT Building Elevations
13. QT Canopy Elevations
14. QT Signs – Attached
15. QT Signs – Monument
16. QT Signs – Canopy
17. QT Rendering
DISCUSSION – NOVEMBER PLANNING AND ZONING HEARNG
This is a two-part request. Part one is to establish a Concept Plan for a convenience store with gas
pumps, hotel, retail, restaurant and office uses, on the entire 8.7 acres, and the second part is a request
for approval of a Detail Site Plan to allow a QT convenience store with gas pumps to be built at the
corner of SH 121 and Freeport Parkway.
As mentioned in the history section of this report, this property was a part of a city-initiated effort,
15 years ago, to establish Highway Commercial (HC) zoning along the freeway frontages to enhance
development standards, ensuring that the limited freeway frontage and entry portals into the City of
Coppell are of the high-quality developments envisioned. Specifically, the stated purpose of the
Highway Commercial District includes:
To create “….an impressive gateway into the community. Because these areas are designated as
major thoroughfare entry points, emphasis has been placed on building arrangement, setbacks,
parking, and landscape treatment, which are intended to be elements influencing the character of
entrance into the city”
The 2030 Master Plan adopted in 2011, echoed that intent by designating this area as Freeway
Special District, which also speaks to site elements including:
“Focal Points - Corners of major intersections should include a “focal point” near major
intersections and around “gateway” areas. Focal points should include vertical architectural
features, fountains, public art, and/or public plazas.
ITEM # 5
Page 6 of 8
“Setbacks - A minimum of 50-ft of privately owned land along the freeway/highway right-of-way
should be free of buildings and parking, with a total of 80-ft in width landscaped, including
privately owned land and available public highway right-of-way, and
“Building Form and Character - Buildings within a development should have a coherent
architectural theme in terms of mass, height, rooflines, and materials”.
In summary, this request is for approval of a prototypical gas station (red brick), with red awnings
and accents and non-compliant signs at the corner of the freeway and Freeport Parkway, with a
Concept Plan for the remaining 6.5 acres which includes pad sites for hotel, retail, restaurant and
hotel uses. While these other land uses are supported by the HC zoning and the land use designation
on the Comprehensive Plan, the conceptual designs and submitted include “no coherent architectural
theme”. The remaining buildings are modern, two-tone grey toned brick. The only architectural
theme being extended from the QT is the inclusion of non-compliant red awnings for the restaurant.
There are also no apparent “focal points” or 50-foot, privately owned, landscaped buffer along the
Freeway.
Furthermore, the applicant is requesting that the hotel and restaurants with drive-thru’s be approved
as part of this Concept Plan and no additional City Council public hearings be required. The Zoning
Ordinance specifies that these particular uses require City Council approval of Special Use Permit
which allows for the discretion to provide “special conditions in order to protect the health, safety,
and welfare of the general public and adjacent land uses”. Language included in the recently adopted
Hotel Ordinance, suggests the City Council consider:
“that the type of hotel or residence hotel proposed is compatible and consistent with and will have
no adverse effect on existing uses in the area, that the proposed use is equal to or exceeds development
standards of other uses and that the proposed use will not adversely affect the ability to locate, in the
future, additional uses that are allowed within the zoning district of the area”.
In lieu of a SUP process, City Council approval of a PD amendment to attach Detail Site Plan has
been used in similar situations (the PD for Point West at 635 and Belt Line Road.), which requires
the same public hearings and technical reviews of the site and landscape plans, building elevations,
conditions, etc. as an SUP.
Technical Issues with the Concept Plan
In addition to the issues detailed above, the following variances are being requested to the Highway
Commercial (HC) District to allow this Concept Plan:
Requesting a 15’ landscape buffer along street frontages.
o This does not comply with the 20’required landscape buffer along all streets.
o This also does not address the 30-50-foot setbacks as encouraged by the 2030
Master Plan designation.
The request includes that the 30% of lot area being devoted to landscape areas be calculated
on an over-all, verses a lot by lot basis.
o It is reasonable to assume that these lots will be sold to individual end-
users/developers and compliance with the regulations of the Landscape Ordinance
is essential.
Requesting variance to the HC district requirement that a maximum of 50% of the required
parking be located in the front yard.
o Understanding this property is bounded by three streets, however, 96% of the
parking being provided in the front yard appears excessive for Tracts A and C, and
should be revisited.
Other Technical Issues with the Concept Plan Submittal include:
ITEM # 5
Page 7 of 8
Tree survey is inaccurate the calculations are not correct, and
o No attempt was made to preserve any trees.
No apparent architectural compatibility standards for the overall development are provided.
No standards for attached signs to be consistent architectural theme while permitting
branding/logos of the individual tenants are included.
No location and/or consistent design for monument signs are included.
The 4-story hotel elevations would not be complaint with the Hotel Ordinance.
No traffic impact analysis was submitted.
Technical Issues with the Detail Site Plan for QT
A convenience store with gas pumps was not envisioned as the most appropriate use for this high-
profile, entry portal into the City of Coppell. The applicant has made an effort to include additional
landscaping and screening at the corner, however, the development is not compliant with various
provisions of the HC Zoning District regulations and landscape requirements.
The following variances are being requested:
A 121 square foot attached sign, plus four 20 square foot medallions (80 sq. ft.) for a total
of 201 square feet of attached signage is being requested, where a maximum 90 square foot
sign would be permitted. This calculation does not include the red striping on the canopy
along the building, which is also non-complaint with the Zoning Ordinance, and would be
considered additional signage.
Red metal awnings instead of earth-tone fabric awnings.
Allowance for three - 20 sf. ft. button signs on the gas canopy
Two monument signs are being proposed, only one 40-square foot sign is permitted.
No landscape buffer being provided along the southern property line, and not all landscape
islands are a minimum of 150 square feet within the parking lots.
A full 96% of the parking is being provided in the front yard, exceeding the maximum
permitted in the HC district by 46%.
The Detail Site Plan was submitted late, and did not go through detail DRC review, so additional
comments will be generated if this proceeds though the process, however, some notable issues are:
A Traffic Impact Analysis is required to determine the need for deceleration lanes, etc.
A Detail Tree Mitigation plan for this tract needs to be submitted.
Additional specification of the low walls as shown on the site plan and renderings need to
be included.
Fire Lanes need to be labled Fire Lanes and Mutual Access Easements
Determination that the monument signs are externally illuminated.
Phasing of development to ensure the entire fire lane serving this tract is built with this lot.
Beer and Wine Sales as noted in the cover letter are not part of the Zoning request, and
separate application though TABC will be required.
Staff has discussed these non-compliance issues, land use concerns and lack of addressing the vision as set forth
in the Highway Commercial (HC) Zoning District as well as the Freeway Special District designation on the
Comprehensive Plan with the applicant, however they have chosen to bring this version through the public
hearing processes.
ITEM # 5
Page 8 of 8
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends DENIAL of PD-295-HC, Archway 121, for a Concept Plan for gas station, hotel, retail,
restaurants and office uses on 8.6 acres and a Detail Plan on 2.14 acres for a Convenience Food Store with
Gas Pumps.