Loading...
CC approval on 11/14/95 AGENDA REQUEST FORM CITY COUNCIL MEETING: November 14, 1995 ITEM ITEM CAPTION: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration and approval of Case No. S-1075R, Valley Ranch Self Storage, zoning change from LI (Light Industrial) and LI-S.U.P.(Light Industrial, Special Use Permit) to LI-S.U.P.(Light Industrial, Special Use Permit), to amend the conditions of the special use permit to include the recent land acquisition to the east of the existing site and allow the construction and operation of six additional mini- warehouse buildings; located on the south side of Beltline Road, approximately 1,521 feet from Mac _~ at t~e request of Brockette, Davis, Drake, Inc. SUBMITTED BY: Gary L. Sieb CiTY CoUNC/IL TITLE: Director of Plan~--~d STAFF COMMENTS: Date of P&Z Meeting: October 19, 1995 Decision of Commission: Approved (5-2) with Commissioners Lowry, McCaffrey, Cruse, Redford, and Reyher voting in favor. Commissioners Wheeler and Stewart opposed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval ~ Denial EXPLANATION: The followin~ condition applies: No additional signage will be erected unless shown on either the approved site plan and approved building elevations as presented. Please note that this motion does not endorse the existing signage on the security building. Please see attached "Information relevant to zoning case." BUDGET AMT.$ AMT. EST.$ +/- BUD:$ FINANCIAL COMMENTS:~ FINANCIAL REVIEW~ CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Ag~da Re~e~ Form - R~vi~! 1/~4 Document Namo $10?$R.*m · Information relevant to zoning case This case has a long history that warrants additional review by Council before staff concludes with a recommendation. This information is submitted to Council because Planning Commission felt Council was the appropriate body to deal with this issue. Specifically, when this mini- warehouse use was originally approved, them were certain comments made by the applicant which suggested an end product somewhat different than the facility in place today. There were statements regarding the architectural appearance of the building, landscaping, and screening among others. Perhaps the most sensitive issue relates to a question of signage on the gables of the building--signage which was never discussed at either the Commission or Council hearing. To be more direct, the sign panels at each end of the caretakers quarters which advertise the self storage and climate control aspects of this facility were never approved by either the Planning Commission or City Council. We have received legal advise in other S.U.P. cases which basically stated that if the sign issue was not specifically addressed, or if there was nothing in the written ordinance suggesting certain sign development standards, then the provisions of the sign ordinance prevailed, and an applicant would be allowed to construct any legal sign on the property. In reviewing the ordinance approving this mini-warehouse S.U.P. however, staff is of the opinion that signage was addressed and illegal signs are on the face of the building. We base our opinion on two facts: 1. Condition //8 of the written ordinance states, in part:U...property shall be developed...0nly in accordance with the...Elevation Plan attached..." (underlining added) 2. Exhibit "C" (the Elevation Plan) clearly shows no signage on the end gables of the warehouse quarters building. In reviewing this request for expansion of the self-storage S.U.P., staff endeavored to recommend approval of the enlargement conditioned upon the applicant bringing the existing facility into code conformance; that is, removal of the illegal signage. During the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant (Mr. Bob Goss) adamantly refused to bring the signs into conformance, and produced a letter signed by the Director of Planning which allegedly stated the Director's support of the existing facility including signage, which the Director denied. The bottom line here is staff believes there are illegal signs on the face of the existing self- storage caretakers quarters, and will not support any additional enlargement to the facility until the signs are removed. The applicant is claiming that he put the signs up with a building permit, therefore the signs are legal and he will not take the signs down. Without addressing whether these signs are legal or not (staff will brief the Council prior to the public hearing) we can not support this request until the existing structure is in conformance with the current ordinance. , ITEM CAPTION: PUBLIC HE~ING Consideration and approval of Case No. S-1075R, Valley Ranch Self Storage, zoning change from LI (Light Industrial) and LI-S.U.P. (Light Industrial, Sgecial Use Pe~it) to LI-S.U.P. (Light Industrial, Sgecial~ Use Permit), to amend the conditions of the special use permit to include the recent land acquisition to the east of the existing site and allow the construction and operation of six additional mini- warehouse buildings; located on the south side of Beltline Road, ~_.~- TITLE= Director of Planning and Co~. Services ~ INIT~ ST~F CO~ENTS Date of P&Z Meeting: October 19, 1995 Decision of Commission: A~roved (5-2) with Co~issioners Lowry, McCaffrey, Cruse, Redford,J and Re,her voting in favor. Co~issioners ~eeler and Stewart oppos~d.~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval ~ Denial EXPLANATION: The following condition applies= No additional signage will be erected unless shown on either the approved site plan and approved building elevations as presented. Please note that this motion does not endorse the existing signage on the security building. Please see attached "Information relevant to zoning case." BUDGET AMT.$ AMT. EST.$ +/- BUD:$ , .~ ~. ~I~eI~ REVZEW: 6~~ ~ · ~ ~VZ~W: , Information relevant to zoning case This case has a long history that warrants additional review by Councl before staff concludes with a recommendation. This information is submitted to Council because l'lanning Commission felt Council wa.v-the appropriate body to deal with this issme. Specifically, when this mini- warehouse use was originally approved, there were certain comments made by the applicant which suggested an end product somewhat different than the facility in place today. There were statements regarding the architectural appearance of the building, landscaping, and screening among others. Perhaps the most sensitive issue relates to a question of signage on the gables of the building--signage which was never discussed at either the Commission or Council hearing. To be more direct, the sign panels at each end of the caretakers quarters which advertise the self storage and climate control aspects of this facility were never approved by either the Planning Commission or City Council. We have received legal advise in other S.U.P. cases which basically stated that if the sign issue was not specifically addressed, or if there was nothing in the written ordinance suggesting certain sign development standards, then the provisions of the sign ordinance prevailed, and an applicant would be allowed to construct any legal sign on the property. In reviewing the ordinance approving this mini-warehouse S.U.P. however, staff is of the opiniontthat signage was addressed and illegal signs are on the face of the building. We base our opinion on two facts: 1. Condition #8~ of the written ordinance states, in part: ".. .property shall be developed...only in accordance with the...Elevation Plan attached...". (underlining added) 2. Exhibit ~Cl~ (the Elevation Plan) clearly shows no signage on the end gables of the warehouse quarters building. In reviewing this request for expansion of the self-storage S.U.P., staff endeavored to recommend approval of the enlargement conditioned upon the applicant bringing the existing facility into code conformance; that is, removal of the illegal signage. During the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant (Mr. Bob Goss) adamantly refused to bring the signs into conformance, and produced a letter signed by the Director of Planning which allegedly stated the Director's support of the existing facility including signage, which the Director denied. The bottom line here is staff believes~ there are illegal signs ton the face of the existing self- storage caretakers quarters, and will not suppo/~ any additional enlargemen{ to the facility until the signs are remove. The applicant is claiming that he put the signs up with a building permit, therefore the signs are legal and he will not take the signs down. Without addressing whether these signs are legal or not (staff will brief the Council prior to the public hearing) we can not support this request until the existing structure is in conformance with the current ordinance. CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE NO.: S-1075R, VALLEY RANCH SELF- STORAGE P & Z HEARING DATE: October 19, 1995 C.C. HEARING DATE: November 14, 1995 LOCATION: South side of Beltline Road; approximately 1,521' east of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Beltline Road SIZE OF AREA: 5.15 acres, to add 32,396 square feet of warehouse space for a total of 97,561 square feet CURRENT LI (Light Industrial) and LI-S.U.P. (Light Industrial, Special Use ZONING: Permit) REQUEST: LI-S.U.P. (Light Industrial, Special Use Permit) APPLICANT: Owner: 'V~i,~ Engineer: Robert Goss and~ Blacketer Brockette Davis Drake, Inc. 500 S. Bluegrove 4144 N. Central Expressway Lancaster TX 75146 Dallas TX 75204 (214) 227-5788 (214) 824-3647 ~.-~.~ FAX (214) 824-7064 HISTORY: Current location of Valley Ranch Self Storage received Special Use Permit and final plat approval in 1994. The rearward portion of the Blooming Colors property, upon which self-storage expansion is to take place was not included in the Special Use Permit for the original self-storage facilities and caretaker quarters. Property to the east, upon which expansion also is to take place, has not been platted and was not included in the original Special Use Permit. Item #10 TRANSPORTATION: Belt Line Road is an existing 6-lane divided major arterial P6D in a 120'-wide right-of-way. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North - Vacant; MF-2 zoning South - Vacant; Grapevine Creek Channel East - Blooming Colors Nursery and vacant; LI zoning West - Valley Ranch Baptist Church; LI zoning COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The area of MacArthur Blvd. and Beltline Road has been designated as a special land use category for mixed uses since it is considered a gateway into the City. DISCUSSION: The land trade and eastward expansion of self-storage facilities behind the adjoining nursery is a workable and sensible arrangement. A special use permit would be unnecessary except for the fact that the expansion is of an existing facility which includes caretaker quarters. The only portion of the expansion site visible off-site within Coppell is the eastern property line. Nine live oak trees planted at 30' spacing within the 10'-wide grass area alongside the storage facilities will soften the impact of the additional construction there. The elevations submitted previously for the security quarters fronting Beltline Road, however, did not show the signage now present on the east and west sides of the building. Furthermore, the photographs of a similar facility elsewhere, submitted at the previous hearing, did not show signage on the building. In the future, the planning staff will recommend specifying as a condition to all special use permits that signs shall not be erected unless shown either on the approved site plan or approved building elevations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with a condition that no signs be erected unless shown either on the approved site plan or approved building elevations and that the signs on the east and west sides of the security quarters be removed. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Recommend approval of the zoning change 2) Recommend denial of the zoning change 3) Modify the zoning change EXHIBITS: 1) Site Improvements 2) Site Plan and Typical Building Elevations Item #10 ......... / i1~ ~ - .._, ,. /, /~., , _ ........ ~-t~ ~ , ,/ ~ [~L ~. ~, "' '~ ' .-......._.... :'1 . ,-.., ---- ..... ..' / ~ ~ -~ ...... ~ .. --~.~ ./ ~.. ~ · '" /., ~ ? a,~ , · j ~... ~ ./ ~ ...... ~ . ~ ~ ...... -' ,,.' ..~../ .~ ..:--- , ..~ ..... ~ ..... ~ ...... / ~ ~"'~-----~-~--'~ ~,~. ~ ~ ..... ~. " ~-X ~ "-~ ... -,. / ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ · /' ~ ~ ,s~ ~ ~ ~ !~ :~ ~ ~. ~ ~ "'- . . .........' -' · : / ,~' ~.~ ~ ,. d ~" ~""~' '~ ~' ',':'~'"~':'.' '"" ' '" ' ~, ............... ' .................... -,--+ ~..:..~ ...... :~:.~-:::.~:~- - . .: ~ - ., . ........... I ' LOT 1 ': "- - · ' ........ . - .... ?:- : "."'."":'" "~ ....... -. · ~ ~ ~'"~ ~~" :' ~"" LOT 2 .... ~i:X'Li~ " ~ '" I -' : '- --~.,~:.~:. - .':....:., . ~- , ~- ~ ~ . ., ." ~.. "~ :--~ ..... .-~ -' .... 1~ ' .. ~ .~: ..- ~ ~ ~ -~ -~- ...~......-.. I ~i!-;'i.:~:l'~!:i~i:~::,;~. ,:.l:.::"-,.i:i':i.:i:~-i..~:?:i ~ ,..:-.~..: .... ~:~ ri' . ........................................................ lr':';:' '~'~i ~ ~' ,il~ · ~i~..;,~?iii:]-~:l-i,l.,.'-~'~~~~~ ~ ~ ii~ '['L''~X'''LX':'iX~'Li';'~':'i':il!:i?''~''':' "' ""~ ..... '"'"¥' ~" "' II ~ ~ ~...~'~'~'~ .... pREL~NAR~ - ~ ..... ~ ..... ~ .... ~~ ~'-'.'~'~"~ ~' LOT ~-S~TE , ~_~ ~ .... ~, ~~y "'~'~" ::...; ~'-'~ ~ - .... ~~~ .....