Bldg.Insp. letter re lack of LSMEMORANDUM
September 5, 1995
To: Gary S ieb, Director of Planning an d~Dy, v~elopment
From: CJreg Jones, Chief Building Offi~~/
Subject: White Glove Car Wash
I have contacted Lenny Poulsen regarding our lack of approved plans for the ongoing
modifications to the landscaping and site work at his project.
In response to our request of more than two weeks ago, Mr. Robert Welty, the architect,
sent a modified set of construction drawings on the car wash facility on Friday September 1,
1995. My request to Mr. Welty, however, was for an approved set of drawings for our
office to be able to conduct a final C.O. inspection from. The set fumished was not an
approved set and did not match either the original approved permit application set submitted
for our review, nor does it match the set approved by the City Council in their approval
packet. In fact, the architectural site plan sheet Al.1 does not even match the landscape plan
sheet L-1 in this latest set sent Friday.
It appears from a site visit that much of the,landscape intended for the projec~t was. deleted,
~_i_dently~without authorization, by the architectur_al sit~ plan:~ I have informed Mr. Poulsen
that this rp, Lqb!em will hav~ to be resolved in Order to~btain a ~fmal Certificate of Occupancy
approval by our office. As it currently stands we have no approved set that matches what is
being constructed in the field.
My recommendation to Mr. Poulsen would be to modify the construction to correspond with
the Council approved plan or obtain approval through mending the Special Use Permit so it
will match the current construction.
In either case, this process would need to be initiated by Mr. Poulsen contacting the Planning
Department and proceeding at that end.
I have informed Mr. Poulsen by letter of my concems and asked that he contact your office
for assistance in getting an approved set. He will also need landscape and irrigation
drawings that correspond with his approved site drawings.
Memorandum Page 2
I am including for your information a tabulation of required vs. proposed landscaping so you
have an idea of the ratio he proposes. This tabulation is based on the current ordinance
requirements. As you can see, he would not meet the necessary minimums. There are other
questions with regard to numbers of trees as well as landscape setbacks, fi:ont yard landscape
ratios and landscape screening that may now not be correct.
Please call if I can be of further assistance.
attachment
xc: Clay Phillips, Assistant City Manager/Fire Chief
Six-City Comparison of Landscaping Area Requirements
for a 290,000 square-foot officWwm'ehouse building on a 600,000 ~quare.-foot I~ (al)lm)x. ,1~0'
located on internal street~ within a business/indUstrial park zoned light industrial
W~th street frontage ~1 $ ~ide~ ~nd adjacent to ~ light indu~rl~! tract on one long ~
Landscaping Area Requirements
City Required on Lot Required on R.O.W. Required in Parking Are~Total
{~q. ~t.) (~q. ~t.) (~q. ~.) (sq. ~.)
Coppell 47,{X)O [.15 x (lot ~ bldg.)] 0 16,~) (t0~ dr INlddl~ afire) ~1~000
~rving ~ requif, tT,ents apply onbr to propedies ~rtb~ h~;~Ry
Richardson ~O,OOO' (lO'N, of lot) 0 12,IXX) (20"N,
Sou~lake $6,000' (10~ of bl~. are,a, 0 4,000 (10 s. fJpa~king
+ 10 along
+ 5' along side line)