CP 2005-12-13 (Item 25 Backup)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION
ELEMENT
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT
DECEMBER 8, 2005
PREPARED BY:
PLANNING WORKS
8014 STATE LINE ROAD, SUITE 208
LEAWOOD, KS 66208
TEL: 913.381.7852
FAX: 913.381.7850
WWW.OURPLANNINGWORKS.COM
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER
515 SOUTH FLOWER STREET
TWENTY-FIFTH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-2228
TEL: 213.683.6000
FAX: 213.627.0705
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT
Table of Contents
I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 5
A. Purpose of Intergovernmental Cooperation Element ................................................... 5
B. Extraterritorial Study Areas............................................................................................ 8
C. Planning Issues.................................................................................................................. 8
1. Regional General Welfare / Developments of Regional Impact .................................... 8
2. Intergovernmental Cooperation.................................................................................... 10
3. Transportation/Traffic................................................................................................... 17
4. Land Use Compatibility................................................................................................ 18
5. Fiscal Responsibility..................................................................................................... 19
6. Environmental Resource Protection ............................................................................. 22
7. Smart Growth and Economic Development................................................................. 23
8. Affordable Workforce & Senior Housing..................................................................... 24
II. AREA GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 27
A. Demographic Profile....................................................................................................... 27
1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 27
2. Current and Historical Population Trends.................................................................... 27
3. Housing Trends............................................................................................................. 28
4. Age Trends.................................................................................................................... 30
4. Employment, Commuting and Income......................................................................... 31
5. Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 33
III. LAND USE ......................................................................................................................... 34
A. Existing Land Uses.......................................................................................................... 34
1. City of Coppell.............................................................................................................. 34
2. City of Carrollton..........................................................................................................35
3. City of Irving................................................................................................................. 35
4. Northeast Study Area.................................................................................................... 36
5. TXU Study Area........................................................................................................... 37
B. Land Use Compatibility ................................................................................................. 39
C. Development Potential.................................................................................................... 40
1. TXU Study Area Future Land Use Summary............................................................... 40
2. Northeast Study Area Future Land Use Summary ....................................................... 41
3. Total Development Impact ........................................................................................... 42
D. Regional Expectations of Site......................................................................................... 44
1. Regional General Welfare............................................................................................. 44
2. Northeast Study Area as Regional Asset...................................................................... 44
3. TXU Study Area as Regional Asset.............................................................................. 44
4. Trinity River Corridor as a Regional Asset.................................................................. 45
IV. LEVELS OF SERVICE ......................................................................................................... 46
A. Defined............................................................................................................................. 46
B. Growth Management...................................................................................................... 46
1. Concurrency/Adequate Public Facilities....................................................................... 46
C. Relationship between LOS and quality of life.............................................................. 47
1. Qualitative..................................................................................................................... 47
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT
2. Fiscal............................................................................................................................. 47
D. Case Study....................................................................................................................... 48
1. Impact on facilities and services................................................................................... 49
Parks...................................................................................................................................... 50
Library................................................................................................................................... 51
Fire........................................................................................................................................ 52
Police..................................................................................................................................... 52
Public Works......................................................................................................................... 52
Schools.................................................................................................................................. 53
V. STUDY AREAS ....................................................................................................................... 55
A. TXU Study Area Alternative Development Proposal.................................................. 55
1. Advisory Committee..................................................................................................... 55
2. Alternative Scenarios.................................................................................................... 55
3. Condemnation............................................................................................................... 57
B. Northeast Study Area Alternative Development Proposal ......................................... 58
VI. GOALS AND POLICIES ....................................................................................................... 59
A. A Vision for the Future................................................................................................... 59
B. Recommended Goals and Policies................................................................................. 61
C. Plan Implementation – Administration and Strategies............................................... 65
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT
Table of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: City of Coppell Interlocal Agreements....................................................................... 14
Exhibit 2: 1970 - 2000 Population Growth................................................................................... 27
Exhibit 3: 2000 - 2004 Population Estimates ............................................................................... 28
Exhibit 4: Population Change....................................................................................................... 28
Exhibit 5: Population Projections................................................................................................. 28
Exhibit 6: Total Units.................................................................................................................... 29
Exhibit 7: Residential Building Permits (# of Units) Issued Since 1990...................................... 29
Exhibit 8: Projected Total Number of Units................................................................................. 29
Exhibit 9: 2004 Housing Occupancy Status................................................................................. 30
Exhibit 10: Median Age City of Coppell...................................................................................... 30
Exhibit 11: Dependency Ratios .................................................................................................... 30
Exhibit 12: 2000 Employment...................................................................................................... 31
Exhibit 13: Transportation Means to Work 1990 & 2000............................................................ 32
Exhibit 14: 1990 - 2000 Travel Time to Work Comparison......................................................... 33
Exhibit 15: Place of Employment................................................................................................. 33
Exhibit 16: Land Use Inventory Acreage Summary..................................................................... 35
Exhibit 17: City of Irving Properties within the CISD................................................................. 36
Exhibit 18: Development Potential............................................................................................... 43
Exhibit 19: Cypress Waters Proposal .......................................................................................... 49
Exhibit 20: Implementation Strategies..........................................................................................67
Appendix A – Table of Figures
Figure 1: City of Lewisville Zoning Map
Figure 2: Northeast Study Area Map
Figure 3: City of Carrollton Future Land Use Map
Figure 4: City of Coppell Future Land Use Map
Figure 5: TXU Study Area Map
Figure 6: City of Irving Future Land Use Map
Figure 7: TXU Alternative Development Concepts
Figure 8: Business Park Concept
Figure 9: Condemnation Area Map
Figure 10: Land Use Inventory Map
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 5 of 69
I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Intergovernmental Cooperation Vision Statement
Recognizing the importance of efficient land use, facility provision,
and service delivery, and reasonable development approval
regulations, the City of Coppell seeks to work cooperatively with
service providers and bordering jurisdictions to protect private
property rights, to ensure land use compatibility and to preserve
the community’s and the region’s quality of life from adverse
impacts of inadequate planning and arbitrary development
approvals crossing jurisdictional boundaries.
A. PURPOSE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
The purpose of this Comprehensive Plan Element is to lay the foundation for building more
effective regional partnerships in the metropolitan area. Intergovernmental cooperation is any
arrangement by which two or more jurisdictions can communicate visions and coordinate plans,
policies, budgets and capital improvement programs to address and resolve regional issues of
mutual interest. Many issues in today’s interdependent complex society cross jurisdictional
boundaries, affecting more than one community with the actions of one governmental unit
impacting others.
Increased communication technologies and personal mobility enables people, money and
resources move across jurisdictions as quickly and freely as air and water. Persons traveling
along roadways use a network of transportation routes, moving between jurisdictions without
even realizing it. Increasingly, we have come to the realization that many vital issues are
regional in nature – watersheds, air quality and other ecosystems, economic conditions, land use,
service delivery, commuter patterns, housing, employment centers and other growth impacts
‘spill over’ municipal boundaries and impact the region as a whole. Our communities are not
islands. The problems a community faces do not begin and end at its borders, so why should its
solutions. The health of our community, of the City of Coppell, and the welfare of our region are
interconnected.
The Intergovernmental Cooperation Element requires Coppell and other local governmental
units, which includes adjacent cities and service providers, to coordinate their actions with each
other. Since many issues cross jurisdictional boundaries, the activities of one level of
government have extraordinary impacts beyond its jurisdictional boundary. Coordinated
planning efforts will result in benefits to citizens of all communities in the region, such as:
Cost savings - by increasing efficiency, avoiding unnecessary duplication and using area-
wide cooperation and economies of scale to provide services that would otherwise be too
costly, as well as to stabilize taxes by improving the performance and delivery of
programs and services.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 6 of 69
Quality of life – establishment of appropriate levels of facilities and services for
transportation, libraries, parks, recreation, schools, police, fire, emergency, ambulance,
sewer, water and downstream drainage, the need for which is generated by development.
Economic development - by enhancing economic growth by planning, funding and
providing the infrastructure and services needed for sustainable community and regional
growth including requiring developments whose impacts or services and facilities cross
the approving jurisdiction’s .boundaries, to pay their fair share of the costs needed to
mitigate the impacts generated by their growth and demand.
Early identification of issues - to identify and resolve potential conflicts at an early stage,
before public and private entities have established rigid positions, before the political
stakes have been raised and before issues have become conflicts or crises.
Address regional issues - by communicating and coordinating actions to address and
resolve issues which are regional in nature.
Reduced litigation - by resolving issues before parties engage in litigation, resulting in
diverting funds that could have been used to provide facilities and services, unwanted
outcomes, and reducing tensions to improve the working relationships of local
government, service providers and community organizations in the region.
Consistency and predictability - of plans, development regulations, policies,
implementation actions and development approvals between service providers and among
neighboring jurisdictions, for residents, businesses and developers that establishes a
framework of reasonable expectations and decision-making in the development process.
The preservation of the City's urban form, the timely provision of public facilities and services
and the adoption of equitable funding mechanisms to pay for growth-related development costs
are important issues that the City of Coppell has addressed. Residents of Coppell value the
character of their neighborhoods, the quality of schools and other public services, the quality of
the natural environment and cultural resources and the breadth of recreational opportunities, as
well as the strong sense of “community.” Concern about the impact of unplanned new growth in
adjacent communities has increased as residents have experienced increased traffic congestion,
air quality and noise degradation, school crowding and the inappropriate development of
environmental hazardous risks and loss of important historical natural and open areas in the
region. Effective intergovernmental cooperation will help Coppell and adjacent jurisdictions
address each of these concerns.
Intergovernmental cooperation established for the purpose of providing regional suggestions,
standards and development review provides adjacent communities with the information
necessary to make informed decisions regarding the regional impact of proposed development.
It encourages and supports the ability of communities, other utility providers and school districts
to adequately plan for the expansion or addition of facilities and services to meet the future needs
of residents and development in the area.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 7 of 69
The fiscal implications of providing facilities and services to meet new development demands
must be estimated and weighed against the anticipated revenues of areas proposed for
development on a regional level. Fiscal impact analysis should not focus solely on developments
with positive cash flow to a particular city. The negative fiscal impact on adjacent communities
or providers, as well as health, safety, environmental or other factors, must be considered and
must override project- or community-specific fiscal considerations, and by where there are
inordinate impacts to the region as a whole. Development approval must assure both short-term
financial and long-term, in the regional interests.
Extraterritorial review, as one component of intergovernmental cooperation, aids cities in
planning for developing areas that will require facilities and services from and create impacts
across jurisdiction boundaries by applying consistent guidelines for development with
appropriate infrastructure and service developmental standards and mitigation of external
impacts.
Land use compatibility recognizes that externalities from one use may impact another
community. The City of Irving’s Comprehensive Plan establishes compatibility criteria that are
considered during the development process when assessing the relationship between existing and
future (or proposed) uses and forms the basis for policies addressing location criteria.1
If the parcel is vacant, is the vacant land adjacent to a use that would not be compatible or
prevent reasonable future development of the property?
Is the size of the vacant tract conducive to a single use or multiple uses?
Are natural barriers available to buffer incompatible uses?
Do the new or proposed uses meet goals or objectives established in this plan or by other
adopted studies?
Do the proposed uses protect adjacent residential neighborhoods?
Do the proposed uses “fit” an established pattern or trend that is desirable?
Can the proposed uses be adequately served by public facilities and amenities?
Coppell’s Intergovernmental Cooperation Element is structured in the following manner:
A presentation of background infrastructure and concepts;
A discussion of existing and future land uses;
The importance of planning and equitably financing facilities and services to maintain
adequate levels of service;
An examination of remaining large, vacant parcels adjacent to Coppell (the study areas);
and
A presentation of goals, policies and implementation strategies to further
intergovernmental cooperation in the region.
1City of Irving Comprehensive Plan (1997), §7.2.1. Though this section does not specifically reference
extraterritorial review or limit compatibility only to land uses within the municipal boundaries, it does establish an
adjacent city’s step-by-step analysis of assessing the impact of proposed uses on existing land uses, whether internal
to the city or affecting areas outside of the city.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 8 of 69
B. EXTRATERRITORIAL STUDY AREAS
The City of Coppell is currently facing several critical issues that make this Element important
and timely. As a member community in a greater metropolitan area, it is especially important for
the City to consider the impacts of development on land that is adjacent to the City but outside of
the City limits. Development on large parcels of land adjacent to Coppell that rely on Coppell’s
services such as streets, public safety, sewer, water, recreation, libraries and parks and high
quality school district, education funded in large part from citizens living within Coppell, can
have as significant an impact on levels of service to City residents as development within the
City itself. Extraterritorial planning is therefore of the utmost importance to the City. The two
extraterritorial sites that this Element examines are the “Northeast Study Area,” which includes a
1,505 acre parcel in the cities of Carrollton and Lewisville, and the “TXU Study Area,” which
includes a 1,700 acre parcel located within the City of Dallas. Both of these sites are described
more thoroughly in the Land Use Chapter of this Element.
C. PLANNING ISSUES
There are a number of significant planning issues facing the City and the Coppell Independent
School District, as well as other service providers, should unplanned or unanticipated
development occur in either of the two study areas. Though both of the study areas are outside
of City of Coppell municipal boundaries, the impacts and effects of a lack of planning that
results in inappropriate development will be experienced by all residents of the City and the
region, whether due to decreased levels of service and quality of life or increased costs to
provide facilities and services. The following discussion of planning issues is critical to a
thorough understanding of the complexity and intergovernmental of factors facing Coppell, and
provides the basis for opportunities for the city, its neighbors and other service providers to
address issues of local and regional concern.
1. Regional General Welfare / Developments of Regional Impact
Regional general welfare is a fundamental limitation on the sovereign government's
exercise of the police power - that is to further the health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens. Because the state's delegated municipal and utility police powers must
promote the welfare of all citizens of the state, it is impossible for the state to delegate
police powers to local governments which would be exercised contrary to the general
welfare of the citizens of the state as defined by the region in which a municipality or
utility is located. Where a city acts in its own parochial "best interest" to the detriment of
significant state regional interests, the regional general welfare doctrine would be used to
challenge the action as a violation of state constitutional substantive due process.2
Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) as defined by the 1971 Model State Land
Development of the American Law Institute are large-scale developments that are likely
to have effects outside of the local government jurisdiction in which they are located.
Several states, including Georgia and Florida, have passed legislation modeled after the
ALI Code establishing procedures for intergovernmental review of DRIs, which are
intended to assess the impacts of those developments on the region in which they are
2 State supreme courts across the nation have enforced state constitutional due process regional general welfare
standards for affordable housing, adequate public facilities and environmental impacts.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 9 of 69
located, not just the host community. DRIs are determined using thresholds set by the
states, which are generally based on the type and size of proposed development and the
population and character of the host County and/or region.3
DRIs are used to assess a developments impact on the region, while maintaining local
government control. In Georgia,4 local governments are responsible for identifying DRIs
as part of the local development review process and notifying the Regional Development
Center (the appropriate regional authority).5 After the Regional Development Center
issues its Public Finding, the local government may approve, disapprove or encourage the
developer to modify its proposed project. The Regional Development Center is
responsible for undertaking a regional review of projects that meet the threshold
requirements for DRIs, and coordinates with the Georgia Regional Transportation
Authority (GRTA) whenever a DRI falls in GRTA’s jurisdiction. The Regional
Development Center evaluates the potential impacts of proposed DRIs and evaluates the
consistency of those developments with local and regional plans, as well as acting in an
advisory role to report on the intergovernmental review process. GRTA has a role in
reviewing DRIs for their consistency with state and federal transportation plans,
including how the proposed development will impact regional mobility and air quality.
The State of Florida defines DRIs as “being developments, which, because of their
character, magnitude, or location would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety
or welfare of citizens of more than one County,” and set up a procedure by which the
review of these projects is to be coordinated by Florida's Regional Planning Councils.6
The Florida Quality Developments program (FQD), was created to provide an alternative
to the traditional DRI program. According to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs, “the intent of the FQD program is to encourage development that has been
thoughtfully planned, protects natural resources, and pays for its infrastructure.”7
3 Georgia Department of Community Affairs' Online DRI Information and Application Web Page, November, 2005,
http://www.georgiaplanning.com/planners/dri/history.htm.
4 Georgia Department of Community Affairs' Online DRI Information and Application Web Page, November, 2005,
http://www.georgiaplanning.com/planners/dri/history.htm.
5 In Northwest Dallas County, Coppell’s location, the equivalent regional planning agency is the North Central
Texas Council of Governement –NCTCOG.
6 West Florida Regional Impact Review Procedures, Development of Regional Impact Review Procedures,
November, 2003, p. 3, downloaded November 2005 at http://www.wfrpc.dst.fl.us/wfrpc/DRI_Handbook.pdf.
7 State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/DRIFQD/index.cfm.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 10 of 69
Regional General Welfare / Developments of Regional Impact
Large scale development of either the Northeast Study Area or the TXU
Study Area must be considered as developments of regional impact, since
the effects of those developments will reach beyond the boundaries of the
respective cities in which they are located. Both sites have remained
undeveloped for years, and are designated in their cities’ respective
Comprehensive Plans for low intensity uses, including agricultural land
and private and public open space, which do not place large demands on
city services or infrastructure. Approval of development that significantly
increases the intensity of uses at these sites must be considered with a
regional perspective and include intergovernmental review during the
development process.
2. Intergovernmental Cooperation
Many governments have elevated planning for public services and facilities to the
regional level, because planning and growth management activities of all areas are
continuously affected by the actions of other jurisdictions in the region.8 The
coordination of multi-governmental planning and management activities is essential if
appropriate growth management efforts are to succeed.9
a. Defined, Examples
Recent years have seen the expansion of intergovernmental cooperation through
the use of intergovernmental agreements, nation-wide, particularly in the areas of
infrastructure provision and land use planning. Cooperation in these areas can
provide cost-saving benefits to both jurisdictions through the prevention of sprawl
development and inadequate provision of facilities and services which impact on
surrounding areas.
Inter-governmental agreements (IGAs) are essentially treaties between two or
more units of government for the mutual benefit of all parties. Within the context
of this plan, an agreement between the City, other cities and providers could
address growth within urban service areas. Such an agreement could establish
each party's rights, responsibilities and recourse within a cooperative growth
management process designed to implement the extraterritorial review policies of
this plan. Items typically addressed in local government IGA's include:
Development review authority;
Annexation processes;
8 Regional Planning Councils are: Portland, Oregon Metro Organization; San Diego Association of Governments
(18 city governments and the county government in San Diego County); Metropolitan Council in Minneapolis/St.
Paul; and Triangle J Council of Governments (Chatham, Durham, Johnston, Lee, Orange and Wake Counties); Dane
County Regional Planning Commission in Madison, Wisconsin, see Ruth Eckdish Knack, Go Badgers, Fight
Sprawl, Planning 14 (May 1997); and the Windham Region, Vermont (includes 27 towns within 3 counties and
covers 928 square miles in the southeast corner of Vermont)
9 In Texas judicial approval of growth management techniques as valid public purposes has been enunciated
recently by the Texas Supreme Court in Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 774 S.W. 2d 284 (Tex. App. 1989).
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 11 of 69
Land use planning;
Infrastructure projects;
Building and related codes;
Public safety mutual aid agreements; and
Administrative procedures; and
Financing of necessary facility services.
The State of Florida’s system is a model in demonstrating the importance of inter-
governmental coordination. Each comprehensive plan must be coordinated with
plans of adjacent municipalities as well as with the state and regional plans. The
local plan must contain an intergovernmental coordination element that
demonstrates consideration of the local plan’s impacts on adjacent governments,
on the region and on the state, and details how coordination with all levels of
government will be achieved.10
There are several types of intergovernmental agreements and numerous ways in
which entities can cooperate within a region. Types of interlocal agreements
include:
Between / Among Cities
City / Service Provider
City / Regulatory Agencies
City / Regional Planning Councils
b. Regulatory Implementation Tools
Examples of governments working together to implement regulations to promote
growth management and funding include:
Adequate Public Facilities (Schools, Parks, Transportation,
Downstream Drainage).
A technique of growth management that ties development pace and
location to "adequate public facilities," also referred to as "concurrency".
Both terms refer to land use regulation that is designed to ensure that the
necessary public facilities and services, at adopted levels of service
required to support new development, are available and adequate at the
time that development is considered. Where adequate public facilities are
not available, the approving authority should:
deny development approval;
reduce development uses to bring into conformity with available
public facility capacities;
time and sequence development approval to enhancement of the level
of public facility capacity to meet adequacy standards requiring that all
such improvement funds needs be paid by the development at time of
10 Fla. Stat. § 163.3177(h).
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 12 of 69
approval and that any share of the costs of improvements to be made
by a governmental entity be included in a fully funded and adopted
five year capital improvement program.11
Transportation Corridor Overlays
As local governments deal with the burdens associated with urbanization,
it is vital that municipalities and counties plan early in the expansion
process to acquire and construct transportation systems which will provide
for future transportation service and act as an organizing base for the
location of new developments in those growing areas of a community. It
has been increasingly recognized that the monetary costs and planning
requirements associated with the preservation and construction of
transportation corridors has overwhelmed traditional taxation,
condemnation and police power techniques.
The transportation corridor reflects a far broader concept than a mere
highway system. The corridor is a defined or mapped area whose central
focus is a proposed or existing transportation facility. Each corridor is a
nexus for an area's major commercial, office and industrial needs and a
site for residential development. Centers and nodes of activity are
designated within the corridor as way to concentrate the most intense uses
while providing connections between destination points. In this way,
infrastructure can be utilized most efficiently.
Taking the concept of the transportation corridor one step further, design
guidelines can also be outlined for the corridor, requiring development to
meet more stringent architectural criteria than is typically required.
Streetscape improvements, such as street trees, lighting and gateway
monuments, and signage regulations may be enhanced as well, to improve
the overall image of the corridor and focus attention to activity centers.
Properly utilized, the transportation corridor concept can achieve the
following purposes and objectives:
Aid in the management of growth by acting as the focus for
coordinated transportation improvements within major travel
corridors, enhancing system efficiency;
Promote the development of multi-modal transportation systems that
integrate highway, air and other transportation modes;
Assist in the construction of infrastructure, including state, county and
local streets and highways through fees generated by new development
which creates the need for such infrastructure;
Reserve right-of way for future development of new and expanded
transportation facilities;
11 S. Mark White, Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances and Transportation Management, PAS Report No. 465
(1996).
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 13 of 69
Reduce as much as possible the costs for acquisition of right-of-way
and construction of new and expanded transportation facilities;
Protect the fragile environmental and natural resources of the state,
including agricultural lands, open space, scenic vistas and historic or
archaeologically significant properties and sites, through cluster
development, average density, planned unit development, air rights
transfer and transfers of development capacity from non-corridor areas
to appropriate recipient areas within transportation corridors.
Transportation Districts
The major source of funding for transportation corridor improvements is
the transportation development district. In addition, a wide variety of
other techniques and districts may be created to fund road improvements
or construction. These include neighborhood improvement districts,
business improvement districts, special road districts, transportation
corporations and special road and bridge taxes. All of these special
districts and techniques involve the designation of a geographic area and
the creation of a district board that has statutory powers to raise revenue or
impose charges within the defined geographic area to fund road
improvements and construction.
Joint Public-Private Development
Joint public-private development refers to a pairing of public and private
resources to achieve a project that will benefit both sectors. By facilitating
local governments to work with private developers and other local
governments in joint public-private developments, the agreement can
provide benefits to both the public and private sectors. The agreement
authorizes local governments to enter into development and inter-local
agreements with property owners and other governments, under which a
property owner would contribute its land to a public-private development,
in exchange for vested rights in the project. Local government roles in
joint development of compatible infill could include:
Assemble property
Provide flexible zoning / incentives
Secure low cost financing
Construct infrastructure
Coordinate government agencies
Expedite development process
Joint development may be used along state and interstate highways, and at
connection points within transportation corridors where development
activity becomes attractive due to the presence of transportation
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 14 of 69
facilities.12 Revenues may be derived from lease revenues, connection
fees, concession fees, and negotiated private sector investments such as
right-of-way dedications.
While the money must be expended for a public rather than a private
purpose, it may be used flexibly as a source of funds for all types of public
facility needs. The earmarking and proportionality limitations applicable
to impact fees do not apply to revenues derived from joint development
projects.
c. Local history of intergovernmental cooperation
The City of Coppell has been an active participant and initiator of interlocal
agreements with service providers, other municipalities, counties and the state.
Between 1989 and 2005 the City of Coppell has entered into at least 25 such
agreements. The purposes of these agreements include: purchasing, library
services, transportation improvements, thoroughfare construction projects, mutual
aid for fire and police, pedestrian trails and open space plans. The most recent
interlocal agreement was entered into with the City of University Park to provide
assistance to evacuees from hurricane Katrina. These interlocal agreements are
with neighboring communities including Flower Mound, Irving, Lewisville and
Grapevine, and extend as far as Dallas, Fort Worth and Plano. Exhibit 1 shows
the interlocal agreements that Coppell has participated in since 1989.
In addition, there are key services that are provided through intergovernmental
agreements between and among neighboring cities, as well as with quasi-
governmental organizations and other service providers. For example:
Dallas Area Rapid Transit - Transportation services are provided by
agreement throughout the region by the Dallas Area Rapid Transit
(DART).
Trinity River Authority - Hydraulic planning and control is provided by
the Trinity River Authority.
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport – A partnership between the
cities of Dallas and Fort Worth and the federal government resulted in the
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.
Exhibit 1: City of Coppell Interlocal Agreements
Participant(s) Purpose Year
Greater Dallas-Fort Worth Region
Fire Protection Mutual Aid
Agreement 1984
City of Plano Purchasing Fire Equipment 1989
12 See Freilich & Nichols, Public-Private Partnership in Joint Development: The Legal and Financial Anatomy of
Large Scale Urban Projects, 7 Mun. Fin. J. 5, 6 (1986).
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 15 of 69
Participant(s) Purpose Year
Cities of Arlington, Carrollton,
Dallas, Farmers Branch, Fort
Worth, Grand Prairie, Irving and
Lewisville Trinity River Corridor 1990
City of Lewisville Radio Tower/Data Communication 1992
Area Counties and Cities Dalhoma Trail 1994
State of Texas Alternative Fuels Program (ISTEA) 1994
45 Cities (Greater D/FW Region) Law Enforcement – disaster 1995
City of Grapevine
Utilities/Maintenance/Inspection/EMS
on 180 acre property which is in both
cities 1995
Denton County Fire and Disaster Assistance 1996
City of Lewisville Denton Tap Road Improvements 1997
City of Dallas
Construction/Relocation of 30" water
main 1998
Cities of Colony, Corinth,
Highland Village, Lake Dallas, and
the Towns of Hickory Creek and
Flower Mound Maintenance of Traffic Signals 1999
City of Dallas and Dallas County Belt Line Rd Improvements 2000
City of Denton Purchasing 2000
City of Grapevine Purchasing of Video Equipment 2000
Dallas County Transportation Improvements (COG) 2000
Cities of Euless, Grapevine, Irving Representative on DFW airport Board 2001
Town of Flower Mound Freeport Parkway Extension 2001
TxDOT and City of Irving
Operation and Maintenance of Traffic
Signal at I.H. 635 and Belt Line 2001
Greater Dallas-Fort Worth Region
Law Enforcement Mutual Aid
Agreement 2002
Town of Flower Mound Construction of Lakeside Parkway 2002
Metroplex Electric Licensing
Agency Electrical Licenses 2003
Denton County Library Services 2004
City of Fort Worth Purchasing 2005
City of University Park Evacuee Assistance 2005
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 16 of 69
d. Plan Support for Intergovernmental Cooperation
Cities in the region support intergovernmental cooperation, as is demonstrated
through the various intergovernmental agreements in the region. Statements
within the Comprehensive Plans of cities in the region also demonstrate support
for intergovernmental cooperation and coordination. Though this section does not
include a comprehensive compilation of all intergovernmental agreements or
references within city plans and documents in support of intergovernmental
cooperation, these references shows that intergovernmental cooperation is a
concern for many cities and is an issue that should be addressed.
City of Coppell Comprehensive Plan
The 1996 Coppell Comprehensive Plan supports intergovernmental
communication and cooperation.
Quality of Life Goal #12 – Coordinate communication with other
governmental entities.13
City Services Goal #6 – Investigate methods to improve resource
sharing with other governmental entities.14
Objective 6.1 – Work cooperatively with other area agencies (such as
ISD, Dallas County, adjacent cities, etc.) to determine areas of overlap
and investigate methods of sharing common resources, data, etc.)15
Economic Goal #3 – Work with surrounding communities, the Coppell
ISD, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, and Dallas County
regarding proposed future plans.16
Objective 3.1 – Where areas of interest overlap, the City, the ISD,
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Dallas County, and
surrounding communities should work cooperatively to determine
creative and innovative solutions that benefit all parties.17
Dallas Plan (1996)
The Dallas Plan notes that growth in Dallas has not kept pace with the
growth of the region, changing Dallas’ roles in the region and creating
new challenges for the City, especially with regards to funding City
services and facilities. Citing the connection between the health of the
center city and that of its suburbs, the Plan identifies the need to
“formulate solutions in a regional context of intergovernmental
cooperation.”18
13 City of Coppell Comprehensive Plan, adopted May 1996, p. 11.
14 City of Coppell Comprehensive Plan, adopted May 1996, p. 17.
15 City of Coppell Comprehensive Plan adopted May, 1996, p. 17.
16 City of Coppell Comprehensive Plan, adopted May 1996, p.12.
17 City of Coppell Comprehensive Plan, adopted May, 1996, p. 18.
18 City of Dallas Comprehensive Plan, The Dallas Plan, adopted December 14, 1994, p. 2-4.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 17 of 69
Dallas Plan, Policy 5 – Create partnerships with other
governmental jurisdictions, facility operators and community
organizations, where appropriate, to preserve and enhance these
core assets.19
Carrollton Comprehensive Plan
The Carrollton Comprehensive Plan promotes intergovernmental
cooperation.
Economic Development Policy 26 - Cooperate with the counties
and neighboring cities to identify capital investments of regional
benefit and support economic development .20
Economic Development Policy 36 - Encourage the use of Inter-
governmental Agreements (IGA) to foster regional planning
efforts.21
Intergovernmental Cooperation
There is a history of intergovernmental cooperation in the region, most
notably between the cities and providers, such as the Dallas Area Rapid
Transit, Trinity River Authority and Dallas/Fort Worth International
Airport. Dozens of similar agreements exist throughout the region as
well. As individual cities consider development that impacts the region as
a whole, it will be important for them to consider cooperative agreements
that will fairly share both the costs and benefits of development.
3. Transportation/Traffic
Transportation, next to education, is the most important component of a community’s
infrastructure base, and has a profound influence on its land use patterns and rate of
growth.
Consideration of traffic demands is a critical aspect of an overall smart growth
framework. Traffic generation from development above the capacity of the transportation
system can only be approved when there are funded capital improvement programs to
provide mitigating capacity within the present or five year future. Pollution and
congestion will have harmful affects on the quality of the natural environment and the
area’s quality of life if these improvements are not funded by the development and
governments responsible.
19 City of Dallas Comprehensive Plan, The Dallas Plan, adopted December 14, 1994, p. 5-6.
20 City of Carrollton Comprehensive Plan, Carrollton by Design, adopted February 18, 2003, p. 75.
21 City of Carrollton Comprehensive Plan, Carrollton by Design, adopted February 18, 2003, p. 76.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 18 of 69
Transportation/Traffic
The traffic impacts of new, large scale development on the transportation
system of neighboring cities and the Dallas region should be considered
before development approvals are issued. Impacts to both local streets
and neighborhoods and the region’s arterials and highway system should
be considered. Traffic congestion increases the costs of doing business in
the region, potentially discouraging new businesses from locating in the
area.
4. Land Use Compatibility
One of the primary purposes of the planning process is to ensure compatibility among
various land uses in order to preserve and protect the health, safety and general welfare of
the populous. Future land use planning provides predictability and security by protecting
property values and public and private investments in property improvements. Land use
compatibility provides compatible edges between communities, ensures adequate
transportation network capacity and establishes connectivity between existing and new
development.
Key components of land use compatibility include the intensity of development and how
transitions between uses are addressed. Intensity of use is measured by density in
residential zones – typically dwelling units per acre. In commercial areas, intensity is
typically measured by floor area ratio (FAR), which compares the area of a building’s
footprint on a lot to the amount of total area that the building is allowed to encompass. A
higher FAR ratio indicates a more intense land use.
Land use compatibility issues include how well a proposed land use achieves the goals of
the Comprehensive Plan, if there are adequate facilities to serve the proposed use, and
whether development should be reserved for non-residential uses when it is adjacent to
existing industrial and commercial sites in order to promote employment and the
economy while protecting residential areas from noise, traffic, diesel fumes and brown
field sites.
Land Use Compatibility
As both the Northeast and TXU Study Areas share boundaries with the
City of Coppell, it is important for the City to protect its residents who live
in close proximity to these sites from changes in land use on those sites
that are not compatible or appropriate with existing development. Any
new development should protect and preserve existing neighborhoods and
be consistent with existing development patterns especially industrial and
commercial uses.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 19 of 69
5. Fiscal Responsibility
Growth management techniques are important tools in maintaining fiscal responsibility.
Existing residents should not suffer a decline in the quality of their services or be unduly
burdened by costs of new growth. New residents and business should pay their fair share
of the costs associated with extending infrastructure and city services to new growth
areas.
a. Pay-as-you-grow
“Pay-as-you-grow” programs help protect existing residents from growth-related
costs. These programs include a variety of techniques that allocate the public
costs of development fairly and do not unduly burden existing residents, such as
development impact fees and exactions.
User or Impact Fees.
Most Texas communities have adopted some form of development impact
fees pursuant to statute to mitigate the impacts of new growth and
maintain consistent levels of service for both existing and future residents.
Development impact fees are one-time charges against new development
to raise new revenues to pay for new or expanded public facilities
necessitated by new development. Impact fees are local efforts to fund the
gap between money available to build or expand public facilities and the
money needed to do so.22
A road user or impact fee is a payment that a local government requires to
provide new or expanded capital facilities to serve a new development.
Impact fees typically require the developer to make a cash payment before
the development is completed and are based on the cost of the public
facility and the nature and size of the development. Local governments use
impact fees to finance off-site improvements that benefit the development.
Impact fees for transportation improvements must be spent for
improvements to the road network that benefit those paying the fees.
Impact Fee Objectives:
Allow Traditional General Revenue Funding To Be Used For
Service, Maintenance and Repair of the Existing Highway
System
Spread Financial Responsibility Equitably
Maintain Planned Levels of Service
Promote Growth Management (Infill, Contiguous & Compact
Development)
22 Nelson, Arthur. “Development Impact Fees: The Next Generation,” from Exactions, Impact Fees and
Dedications: Shaping Land-Use Development and Funding Infrastructure in the Dolan Era: American Bar
Association, 1995.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 20 of 69
Exactions and Dedications.
Before approving a specific development, local governments have
required the developer to dedicate rights of way for streets within the
development and abutting it. Typically, right of way exactions are
imposed at the time of zoning or subdivision approval at no cost to the
local government. These mandatory dedications would not be limited to
rights of way for local roads, but would include dedications of land for
arterials and state highways.
In Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 2319 (1994), the Supreme
Court held that any requirement to dedicate land as a condition of
discretionary development approval must be "roughly proportional" to the
contribution that development makes to the need for new public facilities.
The Court further held that the local government must make an
"individualized determination" of the proportionality between the exaction
and the impact on public facilities. Id. at 2319-20. At a minimum, there
must be some methodology to quantify the impact of the development and
the land dedication required to offset that impact. As an alternative to
dedicating land to the local government, a property owner may be given
the option of paying the city or county a fee. Those funds can then be used
for road improvements that benefit the property.
Exactions are development regulations that require a property owner to
give something to the local government or to a common maintenance
entity as a condition of development approval. Traditionally, before
approving a specific development, local governments have required the
developer to dedicate rights of way for streets within the development and
abutting it. Typically, right of way exactions are imposed at the time of
zoning or subdivision approval at no cost to the local government. These
mandatory dedications would not be limited to rights of way for local
roads, but would include dedications of land for arterials and state
highways.
In the Nollan23 and Dolan24 the Supreme Court upheld the use of
exactions. Taken together, these cases stand for the proposition that an
exaction will be upheld if there is a rational nexus between the need for
additional capital facilities generated by the new and development and if
the expenditure of the funds collected benefits the new development. This
standard has been refereed to as the “dual rational nexus test.” In essence,
there must be an essential nexus between the nature of the exaction and
the stated purpose of the exaction,25 and the amount of the exaction must
23 Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987).
24 Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).
25 See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825 (finding a taking where a north-south beach easement was required for, but unrelated to,
the stated purpose of preserving east-west accessibility to the beach).
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 21 of 69
be roughly proportional to the impact that the exaction is intended to
mitigate.26
In the context of planning, Nollan and Dolan require that municipalities
document the need for development exactions with studies that link the
public purpose to be achieved with the nature and extent of the conditions
imposed. This is most easily undertaken for on-site exactions, such as
subdivision fee requirements and land dedications. The goal of providing
adequate public facilities to serve a new development is a recognized valid
purpose, and if the exactions will mitigate development impacts
proportionally caused by the developer upon whom the exaction is levied,
the Nollan/Dolan requirements will be met.
Texas law authorizes cities to expand dedications to impact fees and
exactions for offsite roads, sewer, water and other facilities. In Crownhill
Homes, the Supreme Court upheld the authority of cities to impose park
and recreation exactions and dedications without impact fee legislation.27
Where exactions are meant to fund off-site facilities called for by several
development projects, both the remoteness and proportionality tests must
be satisfied by studies 1) showing the future scope of growth, 2) naming
the needed facilities, 3) defining facility costs allocated to new growth,
and 4) specifying service units and service areas. The results of these
studies are then inserted into a funded capital improvements program.
Transportation Development And Other Facility Improvement Districts
and Community Association Funding
Where transportation arterials lie outside of the development and the
boundaries of the city approving a project, an inter-local agreement should
establish a transportation development district with the city in which the
arterials are located, so that assessments, rates and taxes can be levied to
fund the construction of transportation improvements and continuing
operation and maintenance costs.
The same inter-local improvement districts can be used for the costs of
library, park and recreation facilities the need for which is generated by
the development. Homeowners and community associations can be
conditional on payment of outgoing service, repair and maintenance costs
for these facilities. Major administrative savings can be generated by
utilizing the existing equipment, personnel and facilities, with only the
marginal costs added to the responsibility of the new development.
26 See Dolan, 512 U.S. 374 (finding a taking where the city failed to demonstrate that the extent of the required land
dedication was “roughly proportional” to the actual impact of the proposed development.)
27 Crownhill Homes, Inc. v. City of San Antonio, 433 S.W.2d 448 (Tex..App. 1968).
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 22 of 69
While school costs cannot be financed by creation of new improvement
districts, the development itself can be denied approval based on lack of
adequate school facilities. Provisions for dedication of school facilities
should also be required.
A number of cities now collect excise taxes on the business of real estate
development in order to raise revenues for public facilities.28 Unlike
impact fees or mandatory dedications, the use of excise taxes avoids the
need for studies to determine the nexus between transportation facilities
and new development.29
Development excise taxes must be carefully structured in order to avoid
their characterization as property taxes or license fees, and must be
established in such a manner that they are not confiscatory. In states with
special tax limitations such as California, an excise tax may require voter
approval.
Fiscal Responsibility
The City of Coppell and neighboring communities must carefully balance
the needs of new and existing development in determining appropriate
future land uses. Legally implementable tools that can be used to manage
growth and ensure fiscal responsibility should be used to preserve the
region’s quality of life, preserve levels of service and protect property
values, and promote economic development. Cities within the region
should work cooperatively to fund services to those areas.
6. Environmental Resource Protection
Conservation of open space and environmentally sensitive areas can actually increase
revenues because businesses and residents are drawn to areas with a high quality of life,
which includes high percentage of protected lands and open spaces in and near to urban
areas and prime research and educational facilities. According to the Trust for Public
Land, “economic advantage will go to communities that are able to guide growth through
land conservation and other smart growth measures…. One 1998 real estate industry
study predicts that over the next 25 years, real estate values will rise fastest in the smart
communities that incorporate the traditional characteristics of successful cities: a
concentration of amenities, an integration of residential and commercial districts, and a
“pedestrian friendly configuration.”30 Further, businesses in the Sierra Nevada Region of
28 See E.G., City of Mesa v. Home Builders Ass'n, 111 Ariz. 290, 523 P.2d 57 (1974); Westfield-Palos Verdes Co.
v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 73 Cal. App. 2d 771, 26 Cal. Rptr. 797 (1962); Cherry Hills Farm v. City of Cherry
Hills Village, 670 P.2d 779 (Colo. 1983); Oregon State Homebuilders Ass'n v. City of Tigara, 43 Or. App. 791, 604
P.2d 886 (1979); Boulder, Colo. Rev. Code §§ 3-8-1 to 3-8-8 (1987)
29 See Strauss & Leitner, Financing Public Facilities with Development Excise Taxes: An Alternative to Exactions
and Impact Fees, 11 Zoning & Planning Law Rpt. 17, 21-22 (1988).
30 Trust for Public Land, Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space 10 (1999) available at www.tpl.com.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 23 of 69
California, where urban areas are close to mountains, wildlife preserves and open
landscapes identified these amenities as drivers of the region’s successful economy.31
Environmental Resource Protection
The open space and green areas at the Northeast and TXU Study Areas
provide both economic and social benefits to the region in terms of access
to natural areas and flood protection. The loss of these benefits should be
measured in association with any development proposal for these sites.
With regard to the TXU study site, there are significant concerns over the
health and safety of development within this area by reason of potential
hazardous risks resulting from the 50 year operation of the electrical
generating plant’s chemical disposals as well as the high energy
transmission of lines crossing the site. Phase I and II environmental
assessment studies must be required prior to consideration of development
approvals, particularly residential.
7. Smart Growth and Economic Development
Smart Growth policies promote economic development community-wide. A key
component of a Smart Growth system is to ensure economic vitality. Economic vitality
includes larger disposable income for residents, a larger tax base and an increased
standard of living community-wide. The economic stability of a region is based on
providing employment and development opportunities, including research and
educational facilities. Smart Growth principals are based on efficient development
patterns, which can be designed to support and advocate economic stability. The
American Economic Development Council believes that for Smart Growth to succeed,
communities must merge land use planning and economic development strategies and
should:32
Be implemented through county/region wide collaboration;
Educate decision-makers about the importance of coordinated Smart
Growth planning;
Maintain and improve local economic vitality;
Plan for economic growth and development in a timely, orderly and
predictable manner;
Establish a long-term strategy that ensures that each jurisdiction has
sufficient land for appropriate development; and
Amend local plans and policies to include fiscal responsibility and
economic development elements to ensure that quality public facilities and
services are provided in a cost-effective manner.
31 Id. at 15.
32 American Economic Development Council, PERSPECTIVE: Smart Growth & Economic Development.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 24 of 69
Smart Growth and Economic Development
Though communities across the region have embraced many of the
principles of Smart Growth as a way to accommodate new growth in a
sustainable and economically sound manner, at least in theory, successful
implementation of the concepts will be enhanced through consistent
intergovernmental cooperation that protects property owner and
community investment. Ensuring economic vitality through compatible
land use planning and development is important to the City of Coppell, as
well as the other communities in the region.
8. Affordable Workforce & Senior Housing
The City of Coppell is committed to providing affordable and attainable housing within
the City for both the workforce and senior citizens of the City. Housing is central to a
community’s quality of life, and the provision of adequate, attainable housing helps to
prevent neighborhood deterioration and a declining tax base. Both the workforce and
senior populations within the City are growing and the City recognizes that providing
housing for these populations is an important objective. Provision of adequate workforce
housing allows for the continued economic growth of the City, and housing choices allow
residents to maintain residency in the City as their life circumstances change, which is
especially important to senior citizens who have spent their working lives as residents of
the City. The City will seek development partners to participate in the process to provide
attainable workforce and senior housing.
The strong local economy and attractive quality of life have all contributed to increased
demand for housing in general, and for more affordable ‘workforce’ housing in
particular. Often, workers must seek housing in other more affordable communities,
forcing them to commute long distances to work. The challenge is producing
permanently affordable homeownership units in a community with limited developable
land.
Workforce housing is a broad range of owner- and renter-occupied housing that meets the
needs of a local workforce. Workforce housing is permanent housing that is affordable to
the average household in your community, and, typically, is defined as housing serving
the market segment of wage earners at 80% to 200% of median income.33 Lack of
housing affordability causes increased commuting times, increased pollution, increased
roadway congestion and less time at home with family. Quality of life suffers and the
social balance of the community is disrupted.34
Senior housing is generally based on market-rate rents, and provides a community for
seniors to live in that provides for their increasing needs. Communities that are designed
for those 55 years of age and older are increasingly committed to an “active lifestyle” for
33 Workforce housing is not low income housing, which federal guidelines indicate can be no more than 80% of the
area’s median income.
34 See Kim S. So et al., The Effects of Housing Prices, Wages, and Commuting Time on Joint Residential and Job
Location Choices, Iowa State University (February 1998).
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 25 of 69
seniors and cater to the increased health and vitality of today’s seniors. Community input
has indicated that there are seniors living within the community that are interested in
market rate, senior-specific housing. Many middle-income seniors that are looking for
housing do not qualify financially for the available government-subsidized senior
housing. The preference of many seniors is to obtain modestly-sized residences where
they can live near to their children and grandchildren.
There appears to be little doubt that Coppell’s economy is very healthy. Unemployment
is low, though employee turnover is problematic. However, rising housing costs are
reducing opportunities for employees working in Coppell extensive industrial warehouse
distribution centers, as well as in commercialized office facilities to live in the City or
surrounding areas, which makes it difficult to find employees needed to sustain the
community. For those who already own a home here, the increase in housing prices is
good news, since the value of their investment (often a family’s single largest asset)
continues to increase. Because housing developments in Coppell are often geared towards
higher income households, those working in the City must seek housing in other more
affordable communities, forcing them to commute long distances to work.
Employers in communities throughout the Dallas area have found it increasingly difficult
to attract and retain employees due to the lack of affordable quality housing, exacerbated
by skyrocketing real estate values, which impacts economic development efforts and the
very fabric of the community.
The persons and families that need affordable workforce housing envisioned by this study
are, for the most part, ‘working people’. This is a particular hardship for those who work
in entry level jobs that are vital to sustaining a good economy and a good quality of life
for everyone, and also includes essential workers (police, fire, health care, utilities,
teachers and child care workers) retail, industrial, office and service industry workers,
entry- and mid-level professionals and public sector (government and non-profit
community organizations) employees. The relationship between commercial enterprises
and workforce housing is key to employment supply and demand factors, focusing
location of residence, business location and transportation and accessibility.
The Dallas Metropolitan Region experiences considerable traffic congestion during peak
hours. The average commute time for the residents of Coppell has risen from 1990 to
2000. An additional consideration is that the cost of commuting continues to rise as
gasoline prices increase. As described in further detail in the Demographic Profile
chapter of this Study, only 15.1% of Coppell residents worked within the City of Coppell
in 2000.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 26 of 69
Affordable Workforce & Senior Housing
The provision of adequate senior housing is an important goal for Coppell
and the region. Sustainable communities provide housing options for all
residents, so that people can stay vested and participating within their
community, though their housing needs may change. In addition,
available workforce housing is necessary if the community and region are
to maintain their economic health and vitality as residents have come to
expect. The City’s demographics show an increasing, and affluent, senior
population, and increasing numbers of professionals and young families
working in Coppell. Attainable housing for these groups is essential to the
City’s continued growth.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 27 of 69
II. AREA GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
A. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
1. Introduction
Characteristics of population change have and will continue to create profound impacts
on the economic, social and natural environment of the City of Coppell. The changing
age, income and educational composition of the population will shape demands for
housing, services, jobs and infrastructure. For instance, seniors will demand more
attached and communal housing types, increased medical services, passive recreational
opportunities and public transportation. Increases in families with young children will
generate demands for work force housing, day care facilities, schools, active recreational
opportunities and a mix of transportation options. This chapter summarizes various
demographic indicators relevant to the development of the City’s Comprehensive Plan
Update.
2. Current and Historical Population Trends
Census population counts are available only on a decennial basis, while estimates are
available from various sources. Estimates of current population and projections of future
population are used to facilitate planning for land use, housing and infrastructure.
The City of Coppell was incorporated in 1955 and has undergone dramatic population
growth as illustrated in Exhibit 2. Since 1970, the City of Coppell has averaged an
annual increase of 1,090 persons, with the most rapid growth occurring between 1990
and 2000 when the City grew at an annual rate 7.9% per year or 19,077 persons. As
illustrated in Exhibit 3, population growth has slowed to 1.9% between 2000 and 2004.
It is estimated that the City has added 2,830 persons between 2000 and 2004 (Exhibit 4).
Exhibit 2: 1970 - 2000 Population Growth
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1970 1980 1990 2000
Source: U.S. Census; City of Coppell
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 28 of 69
Exhibit 3: 2000 - 2004 Population Estimates
35,000
36,000
37,000
38,000
39,000
40,000
2001 2002 2003 2004
Source: NCTCOG; City of Coppell
Coppell is a landlocked city and therefore cannot expand boundaries to grow through
annexation. Consequently, little vacant land remains available for residential
development. City staff projects build-out of available residential land to occur between
2007 and 2010 for a population of 40,205 limiting growth from 2005 to 2010 to 1,417
persons (Exhibit 5).
Exhibit 4: Population Change
Decennial Census NCTCOG Estimates
Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Population
Total
1,728 3,826 16,881 35,958 36,727 37,993 38,481 38,788
Population
Change
- 2,098 13,055 19,077 769 1,266 488 307
Annual
Growth Rate
- 16.2% 7.9%
Exhibit 5: Population Projections
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 - 2010
Population Estimate 38,884 39,236 39,636 40,205
Population Change - 352 400 569
3. Housing Trends
Population estimates and projections are based upon the number of building permits
issued over a fixed period of time. Between 1980 and 1990, the number of building units
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 29 of 69
kept pace with the expanding population with an annual growth rate of 16.2% and
actually lagged behind population growth in the 90’s, growing at an annual rate of 6.9%
(Exhibit 6).
Recent building permit activity shows a continuance of the housing construction
slowdown within the City of Coppell as can be seen in Exhibits 7 and 8. It should be
noted that the City is nearing its residential build out; there is little developable
residential land. Build out is projected to occur near 15,474 units by the year 2010
according to City estimates.
Exhibit 6: Total Units
Year 1980 1990 2000
Total Single Family Housing
Units
1,424 5,447 10,267
Total Multi-Family Housing
Units
- 957 2,219
Total Housing Units 1,424 6,404 12,486
Annual Growth rate - 16.2% 6.9%
Exhibit 7: Residential Building Permits (# of Units) Issued Since 1990
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000 1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005YearBuilding PermitsSingle Family
Multifamily
Source: City of Coppell
Exhibit 8: Projected Total Number of Units
Year 2005 2010
Total Housing Units 14,505 15,474
Annual Growth rate 3.0% 1.3%
Note: Represents totals for the beginning of the year.
As population growth outpaced housing stock growth during the 90’s so did the number
of persons per household. In 1990, 2.81 persons per household were reported to the
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 30 of 69
Census, this number increased modestly to 2.91 persons per household for the 2000
Census.
Homeownership rates are often used to measure prosperity and neighborhood stability.
Homeownership also builds personal stability and long-term financial security, and it
gives a family a sense of belonging and commitment to their neighborhood and larger
community. As seen in Exhibit 9, although the majority of households in Coppell are
owner-occupied, the percentage of owner-occupied housing is down from 1990 while
rental occupancy is rising. The increase of renters can be directly correlated to the recent
influx of multi-family housing needed to meet more affordable and workforce housing
needs.
Exhibit 9: 2004 Housing Occupancy Status
Owner 10,504 76.0%
Renter 3,316 24.0%
Total 13,820
4. Age Trends
Like most portions of the Nation, the population of Coppell is aging. Median age has
risen from just under 30 years in 1990 to nearly 34 in 2004 (Exhibit 10). Various factors
contribute to the aging of the population, such as the aging of the baby boomer
generation, the retirement community, and the fact that age expectancy is at its highest
levels ever.
Exhibit 10: Median Age City of Coppell
Median
Age
1990 2000 2004
29.7 32.9 33.9
Exhibit 11: Dependency Ratios
1990 2000 2004
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Youth (0 - 20) 5,618 33.3% 13,280 36.9% 14,021 36.1%
Working (21 - 64) 10,967 65.0% 21,761 60.5% 23,535 60.7%
Aged (65+) 298 1.8% 918 2.6% 1,231 3.2%
Total Population 16,883 35,959 38,788
Youth
Dependency
1.95 1.64 1.68
Aged
Dependency
36.80 23.70 19.12
Combined
Dependency
38.75 25.34 20.80
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 31 of 69
Exhibit 11 provides youth and aged dependency ratios that reflect the number of people
in the working age population for every young and retirement-aged person who are not in
their prime wage earning years. The youth dependency ratio is a number that expresses
the relationship between the number of working people to the number of dependent
youth. Likewise, the aged dependency ratio is a number that expressed the relationship
between the number of working people to the number of retirement-aged people. The
combined dependency ratio is the ratio of youth and retirement-aged people to the
working aged population.
The dependency ratio is often used as an indicator of the economic burden the productive
portion of a population must carry - even though some persons defined as "dependent"
are producers and some persons in the "productive" ages are economically dependent. In
general terms, these ratios indicate whether there is a significant imbalance between the
workforce and those dependent on the workforce for goods and services. This factor
must be considered along with other economic indicators to ascertain the health of the
economy.
Coppell’s dependency ratios are consistent with other demographic data indicators. The
decrease in the ratio of resident working persons to school aged persons is consistent with
the increase in persons per household, indicating a growing number of families. The
decrease in the ratio of working aged persons to retired aged persons is consistent with
the overall aging of American population and the increase in the local median age. While
the school aged dependency ratio is lower than the national average, the retired aged ratio
is significantly higher than the national average. This indicates that Coppell has a
significantly lower number of seniors than what is the average for the U.S and somewhat
higher percentage of school aged persons. The need for communities in the region to
work with the Coppell Independent School District is critical to ensuring the quality of
education and that educational facilities are not overcrowded beyond adopted levels of
service. Further, the demand for senior housing is projected to increase, which will
require additional age-targeted and affordable housing and recreational opportunities.
4. Employment, Commuting and Income
The employment base in the City of Coppell is primarily white collar office and
management related in a wide variety of industries. Exhibit 12 outlines employment by
occupation by industry for the City of Coppell in 2000.
Exhibit 12: 2000 Employment
OCCUPATION Number Percent
Management, professional, and related occupations 11,165 59.2%
Service occupations 1,091 5.8%
Sales and office occupations 5,248 27.8%
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0 0.0%
Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 525 2.8%
Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 829 4.4%
INDUSTRY
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 119 0.6%
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 32 of 69
Construction 793 4.2%
Manufacturing 2,100 11.1%
Wholesale trade 1,126 6.0%
Retail trade 2,170 11.5%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 1,027 5.4%
Information 1,418 7.5%
Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 2,425 12.9%
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste
management services
3,132 16.6%
Educational, health and social services 2,459 13.0%
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 1,098 5.8%
Other services (except public administration) 679 3.6%
Public administration 312 1.7%
In 2004, the median income in the City of Coppell was $111,941. Those earning 80% of
the median had $89,553 in income, while those earning 200% of the median had
$224,882 in income.35
While most employees drove alone to work, a significant increase was made in people
walking to work or working from home. The total number of working age people
increased consistently with population growth (Exhibit 13).
Exhibit 13: Transportation Means to Work 1990 & 2000
1990 2000
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone 8,693 16,383
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled 623 1,067
Public transportation (including taxicab) 68 89
Walked or Worked at Home 46 985
Other means 277 119
Mean travel time to work (minutes) 24 25.8
As illustrated in Exhibit 14, commute times for persons from Coppell vary somewhat
from commute times in 1990, although the average commute time has been relatively
stable. While the percentage of very long trips (over 35 minutes) has increased, the
percentage of intermediate length trips has decreased due in part to a significant increase
in the percentage of persons that work at home.
35 Source: Claritas/City of Coppell
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 33 of 69
Exhibit 14: 1990 - 2000 Travel Time to Work Comparison
Nearly 85% of the workers from Coppell worked outside the City as indicated in Exhibit
15. This is consistent with the number of commuters and means of transportation as
people drive to their employment and reflects a growing need for workforce housing..
Exhibit 15: Place of Employment
1990 1990 % 2000 2000 %
Worked in Coppell 1,171 12.1% 2,824 15.1%
Worked outside Coppell 8,536 87.9% 15,819 84.9%
5. Conclusion
After two decades of relatively steady, fast growth, Coppell’s population has stabilized.
As the demographics change for this suburban community, the greatest day-to-day
challenge will be to provide facilities and services for the existing population. Even more
important is the need to ensure that future growth enhances the character of the
community, so that Coppell remains a desirable place to live, work and play. Thus,
development of the study areas has the potential to either support the existing positive
attributes of communities in the region or it can impose qualitative (quality of life,
community pride) and quantitative (fiscal impacts, decreased levels of service) hardships
on residents across municipal boundaries. It is critical that each community in the region
recognize its role as part of a greater whole and plan in a cooperative and coordinated
manner. The City of Coppell is committed to being a “good neighbor” and will strive to
continue to work with adjacent communities.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 34 of 69
III. LAND USE
A. EXISTING LAND USES
Primary forces that shape future land use patterns include: existing land use, zoning,
infrastructure, topography, hydrology, population growth and migration, economics, and cultural
preference. This land use element:
Assesses existing land use and zoning patterns;
Considers various other land use constraints and opportunities;
Recommends a future land use pattern that minimizes the impacts from extra-territorial
growth; and
Establishes goals, objectives and policies to guide public and private decision-makers.
1. City of Coppell
Existing land use patterns define the community character, and influence future growth
alternatives. As shown in the Land Use Inventory Map in Figure 10 in Appendix A,
residential development is the primary land use in the central areas of the City of Coppell,
surrounded by developed and undeveloped non-residential land. Future land use in and
surrounding Coppell should be compatible with the existing land use patterns. As
tabulated in Exhibit 16, the majority of developable land in Coppell is non-residential.
Future residential development in Coppell is severely limited not only because there
is less than 40 acres of vacant land zoned for residential use available, but also by the fact
that vacant land large enough to accommodate a residential community of any size is
zoned Industrial. The Industrial zoning classification disallows any type of residential
use. Coupled with these facts is the close proximity of Dallas/Ft. Worth International
Airport to the city. Airplane noise greater than 65 ldN-either on take off or landing--has
proven to be detrimental to a residential living environment. It has been long standing
city policy to prevent residential development inside the 65 ldN noise cone. That zone
prevents any residential development west of Coppell Road where, essentially, the only
acreage capable of accommodating a residential community exists. The policy of
limiting residential development to areas outside the 65 ldN zone was established in the
early 1990s.36
36 Assessment of Aircraft Using Runway 16/34E Over the City of Coppell, Prepared by Pelton Marsh Kinsella, Inc.,
for the City of Coppell City Council, June 1991.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 35 of 69
Exhibit 16: Land Use Inventory Acreage Summary
Land Use Acres Percent
Developed Non-Residential 1,437 15.1%
Developed Residential 2,884 30.3%
Easement 58 0.6%
Institutional 407 4.3%
Parks/Open Space 912 9.6%
Railroad 67 0.7%
Undeveloped Non-Residential 1,976 20.8%
Undeveloped Residential 169* 1.8%
Right Of Way 1,602 16.8%
Total 9,513
*49 acres are currently platted subdivisions or planned
2. City of Carrollton
Of the existing land uses in the City of Carrollton, residential development is by far the
most dominant use. Residential development occupies over 34% of the City. The Future
Land Use Plan for the City notes that the City is rapidly approaching "build-out," and the
last large, vacant, residentially-zoned tracts of land were being developed at the time of
the Plan’s adoption, in February 2003. A total of 33% of the City is in non-residential
use, including office, retail, commercial and industrial.
According to the Future Land Use Plan, industrial activity along the three major rail lines
had long spurred Carrollton’s growth, however this paradigm has been changing. In
1990, 5,000 acres (24% of the City’s land) was zoned for industrial purposes, declining to
3,700 acres (or 16%) by 2000, due in part to the designation of a new Corporate
Commercial (CC) district, allowing primarily for office uses, within former industrial
districts.
3. City of Irving
The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Irving was initially adopted in February 1997.
The Future Land Use element of the Plan focuses on creating a balance of land uses for
the future, promoting an appropriate ratio of residential to non-residential uses.
Compatibility issues are also important to the City, which has a large number of high
intensity uses, and considered itself over-zoned for retail uses at the time of the Plan’s
adoption. The City was over two-thirds developed at that time.
Portions of the City of Irving are located within the Coppell Independent School District,
and development there will impact the levels of service that the school district is able to
provide, and should be included with any projections regarding the CISD. Development
within the CISD, but outside of Irving, will significantly affect the large number of Irving
residents within the CISD.
It is estimated that the maximum residential build-out of the portions of Irving within the
CISD is approximately 72 single family detached and townhouse units and approximately
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 36 of 69
350 multifamily units, for a total of approximately 1,112 residential units. The
subdivisions, number of units and status are shown in Exhibit 17.
Exhibit 17: City of Irving Properties within the CISD
Property
Single Family/
Townhome
Units
Multifamily
Units Status
Hemingway Court 133 +/-
Zoned, Platting in
Progress
Billingsley property west and northwest
of Hemingway Court 300 +/- Not Zoned or Platted
Emerald Valley 110 +/-
Zoned, Platting in
Progress
Grand Estates, future phases 200 +/-
Zoned, No Plat
Submitted
Stonecrest 29 +/-
Zoned, No Plat
Submitted
Undeveloped area southwest of
Hackberry Creek, adjacent to existing
multifamily 350 +/- Not Zoned or Platted
Total 772 350
Source: City of Irving
4. Northeast Study Area
The Northeast Study Area is approximately 1,505 acres, located on the eastern edge of
Carrollton and the southern edge of Lewisville, sharing a border on its east and south
sides with the City of Coppell. The parcel contains 181 acres of water. The future land
use map of the City of Carrollton designates the land for public and private park and
recreation area and for open space. The City of Lewisville Zoning Map designates the
area as city park land, general business and light industrial land, as shown in Figure 1 in
Appendix A.
The City of Carrollton future land use map designates a parcel adjacent to the site on the
northeast as medium intensity commercial use. The area east of the site is high intensity
offices uses, and the southeast area is high intensity commercial uses and public parks
and recreation land. The Northeast Study Area is shown in Figure 2 in Appendix A. and
the City of Carrollton future land use map is shown in Figure 3 in Appendix A.
On the western edge of the site, adjacent to the City of Coppell, the land is designated in
the City of Coppell future land use map as residential land. The southern edge of the site
located within Coppell contains a small amount of retail and office space, with
agricultural land abutting the south east portion of the site. The City of Coppell future
land use map is shown in Figure 4 in Appendix A.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 37 of 69
5. TXU Study Area
The TXU Study Area is 1,700 acres, located within an annexed portion of the City of
Dallas along the Trinity River Corridor. This site is also known as North Lake, and
contains a 773 acre lake. The site abuts the City of Coppell on its north and east
boundaries, and the City of Irving on its south and west sides. The site was annexed for
use as a utility, and is currently zoned as agricultural land by the City of Dallas. In the
1950’s by a narrow creek right-of-way running 3.8 miles from the closest boundary of the
City of Dallas. The TXU Study area is shown in Figure 5 in Appendix A.
The City of Coppell surrounds the western and northern edges of the TXU Study Area.
To the west of the site, the City of Coppell Zoning District Map identifies most of the
land as light industrial. The portions of the City to the north are primarily residential,
with some commercial and light industrial uses on the eastern part of the northern edge.
There are also areas of agricultural land that abut the site. The City of Coppell Zoning
District Map is shown in Figure 4 in Appendix A.
The City of Irving surrounds the southern and eastern portions of the TXU Study Area.
The City of Irving future land use map designates most of the land to the southwest of the
site as multifamily residential, with the land to the south as primarily retail, and the land
to the east as single family residential. The City of Irving future land use map is shown
in Figure 6 in Appendix A.
a. Growth & Development History
The TXU Study Area has had relatively no development activity over the last 50
years with the exception of the TXU power plant constructed in the early 1950s.
With the exception of a Planned Development District granted in 1993, the
majority of land has remained vacant and zoned Agriculture since annexed into
Dallas.
When the 1993 Planned Development District was established, it was requested
so that TXU could develop an “energy park” to demonstrate alternate forms of
energy. The PD addresses the introduction of a residential element in the plan by
stating “No dwelling units permitted.”
The land area is remote from Dallas proper by almost 4 miles through a 15-foot
annexation strip, a strip annexation process subsequently made illegal by the
Texas legislature. The area is completely surrounded by suburban communities.
In the early 1970s, the City of Dallas Planning Department embarked upon an
Interim Comprehensive Planning Program whereby an examination of the entire
city was undertaken to determine proper land use. This portion of the City was
proposed to remain Agriculture, developed only with the TXU plant. The
proposed use for this same area remain agricultural as of the date of this plan.
During the 1980s and 1990s the lake and lakefront areas were utilized as a park
and recreation site by the City of Irving by permission of TXU. The use was
discontinued by the City of Irving due to financial concerns, specifically that there
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 38 of 69
was not sufficient demand by residents for the recreational services that were
offered at that time.
The agricultural zoning of the site is consistent with the treatment of agricultural
land by the City of Coppell, which is as a holding zone.
b. Environmental
The 773 acre lake in the TXU Study area leads to a spillway to the Trinity River.
The Army Corps of Engineers makes jurisdictional determinations on a project-
by-project basis.37 Since there have been no projects submitted to the Corps of
Engineers concerning development of property around North Lake, no
determination has yet been made regarding jurisdiction. However, prior
determinations have been made that include Grapevine Creek, North Lake itself
and the area below the spillway as being jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Wetlands
City Staff reviewed the Corps of Engineers (www.swf.usace.army.mil)
website and the Natural Resource Conservation Services
(www.nrcs.usda.gov) website, as well as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
National Wetlands Inventory site (www.nwi.fws.gov) and could find no
mapping of wetlands in this area.
Run-off
According to correspondence from the Army Corps of Engineers, until
potential development takes place in the aforementioned areas where
waters of the U.S. have previously been determined, then there would
probably not be any concern from the Corps of Engineers. Runoff from
lands into the lake is currently governed under the rules of the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).
Environmental Impact Statement
The need for a national Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is
dependent upon the total impacts of a project. Development within the
boundaries of the lake, especially if the intent is to reclaim portions of the
lake, would constitute a major impact that would require an environmental
impact statement. According to correspondence from the Army Corps of
Engineers, it would likely be difficult if not impossible to obtain permits
to fill in the entire lake site. Not only would an applicant be working with
the Corps of Engineers, but they would also be working with all other
entities that handle water quality/environmental issues.
37 Internal Memorandum Ref: North Lake Property, dated July 19, 2005, from Ken Griffin, City of Coppell Director
of Engineering/Public Works, to Jim Witt, City of Coppell City Manager, and Clay Phillips, City of Coppell Deputy
City Manager.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 39 of 69
Permits
In the 1980s, permits were not typically logged into a database and that
there were only hard copies. The Army Corps of Engineers was unable to
find permit number 198900155 (applicant TXU) for review by the City of
Coppell. A permit was issued in 1985 under a Nationwide Permit for
dredging and fill of North Lake for an approximate area of 441 acre-feet.
It was noted that this was an area near Belt Line Road. The applicant was
Powell & Powell Engineers. (Review of City of Coppell files indicate that
this permit was for channel work associated with the North Lake 635
Business Park on the west side of Belt Line.) A permit was also issued in
1990 to TXU to install a drainage pipe below the spillway under
Nationwide Permit #26.
Potential Contamination
Due to the fact that a complete environmental assessment has not been
completed at the TXU Study Area, it is not possible to rule out potential
environmental contamination of the site due to the activities that have
occurred there related to the site’s use as an energy utility.
Underground storage tanks have been removed from the site, and it is
unknown if there are any remaining tanks on the property. It appears that
a former concrete batch plant was once located on the site and regulatory
database information indicates that Apco Ready Mix has an underground
storage tank (UST) in the area. Adjacent properties may also contain
USTs and other potentially hazardous facilities. Fuel storage and metals
issues are frequently associated with concrete plants.
The site has operated under an NPDES permit (No. 0030295), now
TPDES permit No. 01249) from at least the mid 1960’s to the present.
The North Lake SES facility maintains a federal operating permit (FOP)
and acid rain permit (ARP) for the facility. The facility has, or had
previously, designated waste management units for lead-acid, NiCd, and
lithium batteries, solvents, paint wastes, mercury, oil and water sludge,
blast sand, asbestos containing insulation, ethylene glycol, PCB containing
oil, transformers, and contaminated soil, and caustic cleaning solutions.
Based upon information regarding the site’s history, environmental
contamination of the area is possible and further environmental Phase I
and II testing and assessment should be completed, prior to any
development of the site.
B. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
Compatibility of land uses is a very important issue for both extraterritorial planning sites under
study. When a developable site is located among varying jurisdictions or on the edges of
communities, the future land use maps of those jurisdictions should be coordinated to provide the
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 40 of 69
most compatible development type in consideration of all the neighboring residents and service
providers.
The TXU Study Area has long been considered to be zoned as agricultural space with a major
non-containing industrial use and was so treated by the adjacent communities (Coppell and
Irving) and by the City of Dallas. It was never considered as developable by any of these cities.
The City of Coppell’s Comprehensive Plan supports land use compatibility in the following
objectives:
Coppell Comprehensive Plan, Objective 1.1 – Minimize intrusive/incompatible land
uses in residential areas.38
Coppell Comprehensive Plan, Objective 1.2 – Encourage compatible development in
areas between neighborhoods.39
Any change in the status of the TXU site should be preceded by a regional planning review
process. Though there remains some uncertainty about the future of the TXU facility, located
generally on the north shore of North Lake, at the time of this Plan, TXU was marketing the site
and searching for another utility to purchase the plant. The future land use map of the TXU
Study Area maintains existing utility plant uses and locations and also includes a 50-foot utility
zone buffer around the lake.
C. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
The community’s long-term vision of the TXU Study Area appears to be a preference for a
significant recreational facility, taking advantage of the large amount of open space and lake on
the site, though some low density residential uses also could be compatible with that scenario.
Thought the utility land uses include a buffer around the lake, it is anticipated that some low
intensity use of the lake for recreational purposes would be permitted.
1. TXU Study Area Future Land Use Summary
Total land area for the TXU site is nearly 1,700 acres, of which nearly 800 acres are
water. The remaining “dry” area land use is classified as follows:
Low Density Residential Recreation allows for up to 4 dwelling units per
acre, gross. It should be assumed that of this, 25% of land will be used for
streets and other right of way (ROW), for a net density of approximately 3
dwelling units per acre. The TXU site consists of 389.2 acres of land
classified as Low Density Residential Recreation, for an approximate
potential build-out total of 1,168 dwelling units. This land use designation
is intended to provide low density housing, in the form of single-family
dwellings and townhomes, and for recreational uses. To preserve the
development potential, clustering would be permitted to maintain gross
densities and preserve land for parks and recreation.
Workforce housing comprises 25 acres of the TXU site. At a net density
of 10 dwelling units per acre, the total development potential is estimated
to be 187 dwelling units. This estimate assumes a 25% ROW/parking
38 City of Coppell Comprehensive Plan, adopted May 1996, p. 8.
39 City of Coppell Comprehensive Plan, adopted May 1996, p. 8.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 41 of 69
allowance, which reduces the net density to approximately 7.5 dwelling
units per acre.
Senior housing comprises 17.8 acres of the TXU site. At a net density of
12 dwelling units per acre, the development potential is 160 dwelling
units, assuming a 25% ROW/parking allowance that reduces the net
density to approximately 9 dwelling units per acre.
The commercial land use designation includes 60.7 acres. At a 0.35 floor
area ratio (FAR), the build-out potential is 925,044 square feet of retail
commercial space.
Light Industrial designation comprises 161.1 acres. At a FAR of 0.35,
1,913,404 square feet of light industrial space could be built.
Utility uses would comprise 91.6 acres.
A school campus would comprise 129.4 acres.
A school administrative site would comprise 12.4 acres.
Park and open space account for 25 acres.
Future ROW accounts for 10.1 acres.
Though the TXU Study Area map does not identify neighborhood commercial uses as a
preferred Though the NE Study Area map does not identify senior housing as a preferred
land use, comments during the Plan review process indicated that some low intensity
commercial uses may be appropriate, provided that roadway and other infrastructure level
of service deficiencies and demands are addressed and that the uses are compatible with
existing development and use patterns. In addition, planning participants indicated that
the City should encourage the school district to consider sites along the northern
boundary of the study area for future schools.
2. Northeast Study Area Future Land Use Summary
Total land area for the Northeast Study Area is 1,504 acres, of which 180.5 acres are
water. The remaining “dry” area land use is classified as follows:
Low Density Residential Conservation allows for up to 4 gross dwelling
units per acre. It should be assumed that of this 25% of land will be used
for streets and other ROW, allowing for an approximate net density of 3
dwelling units per acre. With 546 acres designated for Low Density
Residential Conservation use, the total potential build-out is
approximately 1,638 dwelling units. This land use designation is intended
to provide low density housing, in the form of single-family dwellings and
townhomes, and preserve open space and sensitive environmental lands.
To preserve the development potential, clustering and conservations
subdivisions would be permitted to maintain gross densities and preserve
land for parks and recreation.
Low Density Residential Recreation allows for up to 4 gross dwelling
units per acre. Assuming 25% of land will be used for streets and other
ROW, the net density will be 3 dwelling units per acre. With 376 acres of
the Low Density Residential Recreation land, the total potential build-out
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 42 of 69
is approximately 1,128 dwelling units. This land use designation is
intended to provide low density housing, in the form of single-family
dwellings and townhomes, and for recreational uses. To preserve the
development potential, clustering would be permitted to maintain gross
densities and preserve land for parks and recreation.
Neighborhood Commercial allows for less intensive commercial uses.
The Northeast Study area contains 105 acres of land designated as
neighborhood commercial. At a floor area ratio of 0.35, total potential
would be 1,604,906 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses.
Commercial land uses are generally retail and more intensive that
neighborhood commercial uses. The Northeast Study Area contains 137
acres of commercial land use, which at a floor area ratio of 0.35 would
allow for 2,093,435 square feet of commercial uses.
Light Industrial is suitable for warehouse and less intensive industrial
uses. Light industrial uses comprise 36 acres, which at a floor area ratio of
0.35 would allow for 542,136 square feet of light industrial uses.
Open space accounts for 98 acres.
Park accounts for 26 acres.
Though the NE Study Area map does not identify senior housing as a preferred land use,
comments during the Plan review process indicated that senior housing should be a
component of any residential development.
3. Total Development Impact
Total development impact of both the TXU and the Northeast Study Areas would yield:
4,281 Dwelling Units
1,604,906 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses
3,018,479 square feet of commercial uses
2,455,540 square feet of light industrial uses
98 acres of open space
51 acres of parks
144 acres for school uses
92 acres reserved for utility uses
10 acres of future ROW.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 43 of 69
Exhibit 18: Development Potential
Acreage Dwelling Units
Residential
Land Use NE Area TXU
Area Total Density NE Area TXU
Area Total
Low Residential
Conservation
693.9 0.0 693.9 4 2,082 0 2,082
Low Residential
Recreation
403.1 389.2 792.3 4 1,209 1,168 2,377
Workforce Housing 0.0 25.0 25.0 10 0 187 187
Senior Housing 0.0 17.8 17.8 12 0 160 160
Total Residential 1,097.0 431.9 1,528.9 3,291 1,515 4,806
Acreage Gross Floor Area (sf)
Non-Residential
Land Use NE Area TXU
Area
Total FAR NE Area TXU
Area Total
Neighborhood
Commercial
105.3 0.0 105.3 0.35 1,604,906 0 1,604,906
Commercial 139.8 60.7 200.5 0.35 2,131,550 925,044 3,056,594
Light Industrial 35.6 125.5 161.1 0.35 542,136 1,913,404 2,455,540
Utility (Industrial) 0.0 91.6 91.6
School Campus 0.0 129.4 129.4
School
Administrative
0.0 13.4 13.4
Park 26.1 25.0 51.2
Open Space 100.7 0.0 100.7
ROW 0.0 10.1 10.1
Total Non-
Residential
407.4 455.6 863.1 4,278,592 2,838,447 7,117,039
Total 1,504.4 887.6 2,328.3
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 44 of 69
D. REGIONAL EXPECTATIONS OF SITE
1. Regional General Welfare
Intergovernmental cooperation allows smaller local governments to provide
neighborhood level services while at the same time participate in a broader
context within the regional community. Coordinated regional efforts are the most
effective way to plan for:
Schools
Transportation
Regional parks and cultural institutions
Connected trails and greenways
Environmental protection
Air and water quality
Public safety and regional emergency response
New development in the north Dallas metroplex is primarily in greenfield
locations, creating extraordinary demand for new roads and expensive
infrastructure. Without growth, communities stagnate and decline, but an
ongoing problem for growing communities is that residential growth does not
produce sufficient revenues to cover the costs of City and County services that it
demands. Additionally, unplanned growth can cause increased costs with regard
to:
Traffic congestion
Air pollution
Adversely impacting levels of service
Failure to provide adequate public facilities
Violating regional general welfare
2. Northeast Study Area as Regional Asset
The Northeast Study Area is designated on the City of Carrollton’s future land use map
as public and private parks and recreation land and open space. Portions of the site are in
the 100 year flood plain, and are therefore not developable without engineering. The site
is also home to the Dallas Gun Club. The site is important due to its proximity to I-35 on
the northeast, State Highway 121 on the northwest and President George Bush Highway
on the east.
3. TXU Study Area as Regional Asset
Like the Northeast Study Area, the TXU Study Area contains is a regional asset in its
provision of a water resources and open green space for the region. The location of the
TXU Study Area also marks it as an important regional asset due to its proximity to the
Dallas Forth Worth Airport, I-635 (LBJ Highway) and the Beltline.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 45 of 69
4. Trinity River Corridor as a Regional Asset
Several statements and policies in the Dallas Plan identify the Trinity River corridor as a
regional asset.
Dallas Plan, Policy 15 – Complete a trails ad open space system linking
White Rock Lake, Fair Park, the Trinity River and the regional/statewide
Texas Trail system.40
The Dallas Plan notes that investment in new residential areas and
supporting infrastructure has taken precedence over reinvestment and
maintenance of existing neighborhoods. Due to limited funding and the
resultant deferred maintenance, there is a backlog of necessary capital
improvements for existing public facilities. The Plan recognizes that “the
infrastructure needs of new development have often been met at the
expense of existing neighborhoods.”41 The Plan recognizes the deleterious
effects of disinvestment and the suburban exodus, and the competitive
disadvantage that this creates.
Goals for the Trinity River corridor outlined in the Dallas Plan42 include:
Provide flood damage reduction for residents and businesses
Generate private economic development
Leverage transportation opportunities
Preserve and restore the environment in the Trinity River Corridor
Develop recreation areas and preserve natural open space and forests
40 City of Dallas Comprehensive Plan, The Dallas Plan, adopted December 14, 1994, p. 5-21.
41 City of Dallas Comprehensive Plan, The Dallas Plan, adopted December 14, 1994, pp. 6-1, 6-2.
42 Ibid., p. 10-5.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 46 of 69
IV. LEVELS OF SERVICE
A. DEFINED
Levels of service (LOS) define the city’s role as a service provider, and in partnerships with
other service providers, for the provision of facilities and services and defines public and private
responsibilities for the provision of facilities. In its most simplistic terms, a level of service
standard is a locally desired ratio of service and facilities demand to supply. One of the best
definitions of LOS is found in the Florida Department of Community Affairs’ Administrative
Code, which reads,
“Level of service” means an indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by, or
proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational
characteristics of the facility. Level of service shall indicate the capacity per unit of
demand for each public facility.”43
This concept applies to schools, public facilities, the transportation networks, water and sewer,
surface water discharge, police, fire, emergency response, parks and recreation, libraries, social
services and any other public service provided by local governments.
B. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Within the broad term of “Growth Management” exists a number of regulatory, fiscal and
administrative techniques that if properly employed allow communities to ensure that
development is timed, located, designed and financed without negatively impacting the
community. Concurrency and adequate public facilities ordinances require that specified public
facilities and services be provided to new development at the adopted LOS without diluting the
service levels enjoyed by existing development below the adopted LOS.
1. Concurrency/Adequate Public Facilities
A further technique of growth management ties development pace and location to
"adequate public facilities," also referred to as "concurrency". Both terms refers to land
use regulation that is designed to ensure that the necessary public facilities and services at
adopted levels of service are required to support new development are available and
adequate at the time that development is considered. An APFO establishes level of
service (LOS) standards for each major kind of physical infrastructure (e.g., road, water,
sewer, drainage, parks, community facilities) and services (e.g., police, fire, EMT) which
must be in place at the time that the development occurs, often with some phase-in
component.44
43 Florida Administrative Code Sec. 9J-5.003(45).
44 It is important to distinguish an APFO and its LOS standards from the design or layout of buildings which are
regulated through architectural design standards.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 47 of 69
APFOs control the timing of new development. If infrastructure capacity is limited, an
APFO will require phasing of the development until the facilities are available.45 The
major objectives of an APFO are:
To link the provision of needed public facilities and services to the type,
amount, location, density, rate and timing of new development;
To ensure that new growth and development do not outpace the ability of
service providers to accommodate such development at established level
of service standards; and
To coordinate public facility and service capacity with the demands
created by new development.46
Concurrency regulations must be accompanied by a “good faith effort” to resolve existing
deficiencies through a fully funded and prioritized capital improvements program.47
Concurrency must also be based upon an integrated and comprehensive plan.48
C. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOS AND QUALITY OF LIFE
1. Qualitative
Qualitatively, levels of service are indicators of the attractiveness of a community to
existing and future residents and businesses. Good schools, adequate public safety
provision, air quality, noise reduction, environmental preservation, recreational and
cultural opportunities and accessible green space are just a few of the elements that the
City influences that make Coppell a desirable place to live. Cities that provide a high
level of services project an image that attracts new residents and maintains property
values, ensuring their ability to continue a high level of service provision.
2. Fiscal
The quantitative aspect of the relationship between levels of service and quality of life
can be described in fiscal terms, which can be proven empirically. For instance, levels of
service for roadways would be described by traffic flow and measurable delays due to
congestion. Traffic delays that make it difficult for employees to get to their jobs can
result in a loss of productivity, making the region less desirable for workers and
businesses alike.
45 See, S. Mark White, Using Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances For Traffic Management, Planning Advisory
Service Report No. 465 (American Planning Assoc., 1996). Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County v.
Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1996).
46 Richard L. Settle & Charles G. Gavigan, The Growth Management Revolution Washington, 15 U. PUGET SOUND
L. REV. 869 (1993).
47 Robert H. Freilich & S. Mark White, Transportation, and Growth Management, 4 LOY. L. REV. 915, 955 (1991).
See Maryland Code Ann. Envt. § 9-4`1(b); Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.010.
48 Wincamp Partnership v. Anne Arundel County, 458 F. Supp. 1009 (D. Md. 1978); Long Beach Equities v. County
of Ventura, 282 Cal. Rptr. 877 (Cal. App. 1991)
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 48 of 69
Residential development is the most costly type of growth in terms of service provision.
Generally, residential uses do not produce sufficient revenue through property taxes to
support the necessary level of services. With limited land and revenues available to
expand facilities to accommodate new growth, the County and City face fiscal and
economic stagnation and eventual disinvestment. Industrial and commercial land uses
help to bridge the gap in funding service provision for residential uses.
Although residential property taxes form a significant portion of the City’s revenues,
making it possible to provide a high level of services, most cities cannot rely exclusively
on residential property taxes to fund those services. Sales and property tax revenues from
industrial and commercial uses within the City are needed to overcome budget shortfalls
created by residential uses. However, property taxes are a significant expense for most
households, adding to the cost of owning a home and making the goal of housing
affordability even harder to achieve. By supporting land uses that are less expensive to
service and create positive revenue streams, the City can keep residential property tax
rates down, contributing to a higher quality of life for residents through greater housing
affordability.
D. CASE STUDY
The Crow-Billingsley development proposal, known as Cypress Waters, initially included 4,500
housing units and 38 million square feet of gross floor area (sf gfa). The proposal at the time of
this draft consists of a primarily residential development, with a total of 4,697 residential units;
60,000 square feet of retail space; and 12.5 acres of proposed institutional land. A total of 708
residential units, or 15% of the total housing units, are planned as single-family homes. The
remaining 3,989 units, or 85% of the total residential unit, are planned as multi-family units.49
Exhibit 19 shows the composition of the proposed development.50 On November 29, 2005, after
the preparation of this initial draft, a new handwritten amended proposal was submitted by
Crow-Billingsley to the City of Dallas, withdrawing its request for PD zoning, withdrawing its
site plan and instead proposing a simple rezoning of the property into two zones: MU (shown on
this plan’s land use map as the southwest portion of the TXU site) and TH (shown on this plan’s
land use map as the southeast portion of the TXU site). These districts, proposed without any
limitation or use or density and with no accompanying site plan or studies, would create over
9,000 dwelling units at the maximum highest densities and the FARs allowed by those zoning
districts. The final adopted version of this plan will include an analysis of the grossly extended
impacts of any approval of the latest application.
49 Source: Crow-Billingsley
50 The City of Coppell understands that as of the date of this publication, a new proposal is coming forward from
Crow Billingsley. That proposal will be integrated into this document if available before final publication.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 49 of 69
Exhibit 19: Cypress Waters Proposal51
1. Impact on facilities and services
The development proposed by Crow-Billingsley, also known as Cypress Waters, will
have a fiscal impact on services provided by the City of Coppell, directly adjacent to the
development site, compared with that of the City of Dallas 3.8 miles away. The fiscal
impact study shows the costs and revenues to both CISD and the City of Coppell of the
development as proposed by Crow-Billingsley (as of November 15, 2005).52
For the City of Coppell fiscal analysis, the analysis assumes the City maintains its current
level of service for certain services and facilities that are likely to be used by residents
and businesses of Cypress Waters. Even though the development will be within the City
of Dallas corporate limits, the Coppell services of Parks and Library are much closer in
51 Tischler-Bise, Fiscal Impact Analysis Of North Lake: Cypress Waters Development/CrowBillingsley Proposal
(November 23, 2005), p. 5.
52 Ibid, p. 7.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 50 of 69
proximity to the site than Dallas facilities. Costs are also reflected for Fire, Police, and
Public Works. The analysis shows what the costs are to the City of Coppell to provide
those services and facilities, as the City of Dallas will not be able to efficiently provide
those services.
Because Cypress Waters is located in the City of Dallas, the City of Coppell will not
receive significant revenue from the development. The only revenues assumed reflect
recreational fees collected from non-residents. Expenditures reflect costs for those
services that are likely to be impacted by the proposed development. Those services are:
Parks improvements and operations; Library facilities and operations; Fire operations;
Police operations; and Public Works operations (facilities management operations and
roads maintenance and operations), particularly on Beltline Road west of the proposed
development. These costs are not absolute, but are dependent on the type and intensity of
the final development that is approved on the site.
In other words, the assumption is that the City of Coppell will maintain its current level
of service for facilities and services based on usage by residents and nonresidents alike.
Demand from Cypress Waters will in essence dramatically decrease levels of service for
City of Coppell residents.
Parks
The City of Coppell currently provides a system of park and recreational facilities open to
residents and non-residents. Facilities provided at a citywide level are City Parks,
Community Parks, Linear Parks, and Recreation Facilities. Each of these types of
facilities will be impacted by the Cypress Waters development. (The City also provides
Neighborhood Parks that serve a smaller geographic area. It is assumed smaller park
amenities akin to Neighborhood Parks will be provided as part of Cypress Waters and
therefore demand from the development will not impact Coppell’s Neighborhood
Parks.)53 To maintain the City’s current level of service for these facilities, the following
Park and Recreation capital improvements are required to serve Cypress Waters:
City Parks: Current level of service is 8.8 acres per 1,000 persons
(inventory of City Parks includes 343 acres with 14 baseball/softball game
fields, 12 athletic courts, 22 soccer/lacrosse game fields, and 10
soccer/lacrosse practice fields), thus requiring 89 acres to serve demand
from Cypress Waters. Total capital cost including land ($131,000 per acre)
and improvements ($69,000 per acre) is estimated at $17.8 million.
Community Parks: Current level of service is .44 acres per 1,000 persons
(current inventory includes 17 acres with 7 baseball/softball game fields
and 2 practice fields). To serve demand from Cypress Waters, 4.4 acres is
required. Total capital cost including land ($131,000 per acre) and
improvements ($236,000 per acre) is estimated at $1.6 million.
Linear Parks: Current level of service is .55 acres per 1,000 persons
(current inventory includes 21 acres), thus requiring 5.5 acres to serve
53 This assumption can no longer be made for Crow-Billingsley’s latest application which has removed the site plan
showing some neighborhood park facilities.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 51 of 69
demand from Cypress Waters. Total capital cost including land ($131,000
per acre) and improvements ($14,000 per acre) is estimated at $802,000.
Recreation Facility: Current level of service is .97 square feet per person
(current inventory of 38,000 square feet), thus requiring an additional
9,875 square feet to serve demand from Cypress Waters. Total capital cost
is estimated at $2.3 million ($234/square foot).
The resulting annual debt service on the above capital improvements, including City
Parks, Community Parks, Linear Parks and Recreational Facilities is $1.8 million based
on a 20-year term and 5 percent interest rate.
Variable Parks operating expenditures include: Senior Adult Services,
Recreation, Ballfield Maintenance, and Tennis Center, all of which is
projected based on increase in population from Cypress Waters; as well as
Maintenance, projected on additional Park acres added to the inventory.
The resulting annual operating cost as shown below is about $1 million.
Included in this cost are General Government administrative costs
($184,721) that will vary due to Parks and Recreation expansion (City
Management, Legal Services, Human Resources, and Purchasing). Costs
are allocated to Parks according to the share of variable Parks costs as a
share of the General Fund budget.
Library
If the City were to provide reciprocal Library services to Dallas residents at the current
level of service provided to Coppell residents, Coppell would need to add 7,300 square
feet of space to the current inventory at a one-time cost of $2.5 million ($339/sf), which
includes construction, furniture, equipment, collections, and technology. It is assumed the
facility is a stand-alone branch (due to inadequate space to expand the current facility),
therefore additional land will need to be purchased at a cost of $110,000 (36,500 square
feet at $3/sf). Annual debt service on these costs is approximately $207,000. Because the
facility is assumed as a stand-alone branch, operating costs to staff and operate the new
facility are assumed at one-third current costs per City staff, or an annual cost of
approximately $520,000. Included in this cost are General Government administrative
costs ($79,742) that will vary due to Library expansion (City Management, Legal
Services, Human Resources, and Purchasing). Costs are allocated to Library according to
the share of variable Library costs as a share of the General Fund budget.54
54 To calculate General Government administrative costs attributed to each service category (Library, Parks, Fire,
Police, and Public Works), variable General Government costs were identified by City staff. These include City
Management, Legal Services, Human Resources, and Purchasing. Current General Fund costs for those services
were determined ($1,608,346) (which nets out the water/sewer reimbursement). From there, the proportion of the
variable portion of the service category budget out of total General Fund (less General Government administrative
costs) was determined. For example for Libraries, the Library budget of $1,497,895 (which is wholly variable with
new growth) is divided by the General Fund budget of $30,211,478 (with General Government costs netted out) to
arrive at 5 percent. Therefore, 5 percent of variable General Government administrative costs is attributed to
Libraries (5% x $1,608,346 = $79,742). (Totals may not equal due to rounding.) This calculation is repeated for
each variable City service category.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 52 of 69
Fire
Fire fiscal results are predicated on the City of Dallas being the first responder to
Fire/EMS calls. According to Coppell staff, Coppell is not currently positioned to
provide adequate first response to Cypress Waters, nor is it obligated to do so because the
development is located in the City of Dallas. Provision of first response Fire/EMS
services by Coppell to Cypress Waters would require a policy change and negotiated
arrangement and is therefore not reflected in this analysis.
However, the study assumes that there will be calls for service because the City of
Coppell is part of a Dallas County mutual aid agreement for Fire protection/EMS
services. Therefore, development in Cypress Waters will increase overall Fire/EMS call
volume and will increase the number of calls for service to which the Coppell Fire
Department will respond as part of mutual aid. Based on discussions with Coppell staff,
the analysis assumes that the Coppell Fire department would respond to half of the calls
for service generated by Cypress Waters. Based on the City of Coppell’s current call
level, this assumption results in an increase in Fire/EMS calls of about 10 percent. Per
City staff, the increase will not necessitate additional station space or apparatus, but will
increase operating costs. This results in an annual operating impact of approximately
$68,000. Included in this cost are General Government administrative costs
($30,026) that will vary due to increase in Fire services (City Management, Legal
Services, Human Resources, and Purchasing). Costs are allocated to Fire according to the
share of variable costs as a share of the General Fund budget.
Police
Based on discussions with City staff, due to additional traffic generated by Cypress
Waters, Police traffic enforcement operations will be impacted. The City currently has 5
traffic officers dedicated full-time to traffic enforcement; in addition, per City staff, the
remaining patrol officers spend approximately 15 percent of their time on traffic
enforcement. Together, these costs amount to approximately 11 percent of the total
current Police personnel budget, or $695,000 per year.
Based on the current number of traffic contacts per trip in the City of Coppell, Cypress
Waters is projected to add approximately 15 percent to the existing traffic contacts per
year. This results in an annual operating fiscal impact of almost $109,000. Included in
this cost are General Government administrative costs ($33,857) that will vary due to
increased Police operations (City Management, Legal Services, Human Resources, and
Purchasing). Costs are allocated to Police according to the share of variable costs as a
share of the General Fund budget.
Public Works
For Public Works, facilities management and road costs are reflected in the analysis. For
facilities management, the cost to maintain the additional municipal building square
footage necessitated by Cypress Waters (i.e., Library, Recreation Facilities) is projected.
This results in an annual operating cost of $49,000.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 53 of 69
For roads, maintenance and operating costs are included at this time. In addition to the
costs of usage of Coppell streets, Beltline Road, contiguous to the western end of the C-B
Project is entirely under the jurisdiction of the City of Coppell. Improvements are
required for signalization, intersectional and acceleration-deceleration lane additions. Per
City staff, current City ongoing road maintenance costs are approximately $800,000 per
year, which represents about 80 percent of the Public Works Streets operating budget.
Using current vehicle trips in the City of Coppell and projected trips from Cypress
Waters, projected annual road maintenance costs from Cypress Waters is $150,000.
Combined, Public Works operating fiscal impact from Cypress Waters is projected at
almost $216,000. Included in this cost are General Government administrative costs
($103,768) that will vary due to increased Public Works operations (City Management,
Legal Services, Human Resources, and Purchasing). Costs are allocated to Public Works
according to the share of variable costs as a share of the General Fund budget.
Schools
It is projected that the development of the Cypress Waters proposal will add an additional
2,078 students to the Coppell Independent School District. For capital expenditures,
annual costs at build-out are debt service payments on one-time capital improvements,
which include 3 schools (2 elementary schools and 1 middle school or 9th grade center),
land for the 3 schools, and administrative space. Projected annual revenues total
approximately $6.4 million while annual costs are projected at $17.2 million. This results
in a projected annual net deficit of approximately $10.8 million.
Operating expenditures total approximately $12.8 million, with instruction comprising
the majority of the costs. Annual capital expenditures are debt service payments on total
required capital expenditures generated by the proposed development. Per CISD staff and
based on existing school capacities, the projected increased enrollment of 1,122
elementary students and 1,064 middle and high school students at Cypress Waters will
require an additional two elementary schools and one middle school or 9th grade center.
Capital costs therefore include two elementary schools (with a capacity of 500 students
each), one middle school or 9th grade center (with a capacity of 1,000 students), land for
the school facilities (10 acres per elementary school and 20 acres per middle school), and
additional administrative space (5,555 square feet based on current level of service of 2.7
square feet per student). Total one-time capital expenditures to serve the development are
$54.8 million, which results in annual debt service payments at build-out of $4.4 million.
(Financing assumptions are a 20-year term at 5 percent interest.)
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 54 of 69
Impact on Facilities and Services
As the Cypress Waters development proposal is primarily residential, and
within the Dallas City limits but within much closer proximity to the City
of Coppell, the fiscal impacts will be felt in Coppell. To maintain the
current level of services for residents and non-residents if the current
Cypress Waters development is completed, the City of Coppell will have a
projected $3.7 million annual deficit. This is based on projected annual
revenues from the site of $291,454, with annual costs projected at almost
$4 million.55 In addition, the impact of levels of service will be felt by all
residents in the region, across municipal boundaries, and ultimately paid
for by those same residents as the smaller communities struggle to
accommodate growth demands being generated by the approval of a high-
density development by distant city, but will bear none of the off-side
road, school, library, city and community parks.
55 Fiscal Impact Analysis Of North Lake: Cypress Waters Development/Crow-Billingsley Proposal, pp. 3-4.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 55 of 69
V. S TUDY AREAS
A. TXU STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
1. Advisory Committee
At the November 17, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Advisory Committee was solicited for recommendations regarding the most important
outcomes of the process to update the City of Coppell Comprehensive Plan, as well as
information regarding the most important issues facing the City of Coppell and the
various changes that have occurred in Coppell over the past ten years.
The Committee overwhelming chose the development of North Lake as one of the three
most important issues currently facing the City, especially with regard to land use and
transportation policies. Other growth/development issues that were frequently mentioned
included development of highway commercial properties and the development of Old
Coppell. The impact of regional transportation issues and initiatives on the City were
matters of interest, as well.
There was also considerable concern regarding maintenance and investment in the City’s
infrastructure and capital improvements, including the City’s roadways and school
system. Overcrowding of the schools was a listed as an important issue to address, as
was the State’s school financing system, known as “Robin Hood.” Parks and recreation,
youth and senior programs were all items of priority to the Committee.
There has been unanimous consensus from all of the City of Coppell Planning
Commissioners that the entire 1,700 acres of the TXU Study Area be included in any plan
recommendations to the City Council.
2. Alternative Scenarios
As part of the process to study extraterritorial planning in the City of Coppell, several
development scenarios for the North Lake area (TXU Study Area) were examined and
then submitted for further review by the City Council, Planning and Zoning Advisory
Committee and by representatives of the Coppell Independent School District. The
alternatives analysis process was used as a basis to study the merits of land use pattern
alternatives and formulate a future land use plan based on the needs of the Coppell
community and various service providers. The purpose of a typical alternatives analysis
is to 1) reflect a clear understanding of the existing conditions in the community; 2) to
propose growth trends and development patterns which reflect realistic possibilities for
the City and community as a whole; and 3) to compare the relative impacts of different
growth management strategies.
Plan alternatives were designed to:
Pose distinct policy options;
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 56 of 69
Reflect a range of realistic, distinct and possible futures;
Provide a means of comparing the relative fiscal, land use and character
outcomes; and
Evaluate land use and fiscal impacts over 20-year planning period.
Each alternative growth pattern was evaluated for its impact on several review factors,
including community growth, local economy, public facilities and services and the
environment.
The alternatives that were reviewed are shown in Figure 7 in Appendix A and include:
Commercial Center Concept
North Lake Village Concept
Business Park v1
Business Park v5
The alternative that was most supported by the participants in the process was the
Business Park Concept. This alternative is shown in Figure 8 in Appendix A.
Comments from the Planning and Zoning Committee Chairman in regard to the Business
Park Concept included the desire for increased Senior Housing with the Low Density
Residential along the south and eastern areas of the lake - similar to the concepts of
Leisure World, or Del Webb developments, which include golfing/recreational facilities.
They agreed with the Light Industrial zoning along the southern boundary of Belt Line
Road (from Mockingbird to east of Denton Tap), however believe that Neighborhood
Commercial zoning along the eastern side of Belt Line Road between Wrangler and
Sander's Loop, up to and surrounding the existing service station on the SEC of Belt Line
Road and Denton Tap would be a better use of the land.
The Business Park Concept includes the provision of affordable worker and senior
housing and parks land, all of which are important objectives for the City of Coppell.
Zoning in both study areas will be consistent with the identified future land uses.
However, school uses should have an underlying zoning that permits industrial uses.
The alternatives were considered in regard to the Comprehensive Plan of Coppell,
including the following economic development goals and objectives:56
Economic Development Goal #1 – Development a diversified local economy.
Objective 1.2 – Attract new businesses that would enhance Coppell’s quality of life,
including commercial, retail, offices, and businesses.
Objective 1.4 – Develop uses compatible with Dallas/Fort Worth International
Airport, such as hotel and conference facilities, freight forwarding, light
manufacturing, and warehousing/distribution.
56 City of Coppell Comprehensive Plan, adopted May 1996, pp. 12-13.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 57 of 69
Economic Development Goal #2 – Promote Coppell’s Economic Development.
Objective 2.2 – Encourage a more diversified economic base and increased
development of Coppell.
3. Condemnation
After a number of meetings with the City of Dallas staff and C-B representatives, over an
extended period during the spring and summer of 2005 relating to alternative land uses
and public facilities adequacy, the City of Coppell and the Coppell Independent School
District (CISD) have petitioned for condemnation of property in the North Lake area. On
November 17, 2005, both the City Council and the Board of Trustees of CISD adopted
resolutions authorizing the filing of condemnation petitions. The City Council authorized
the acquisition of approximately 80 acres of property for the public uses and purposes of
parks and recreation, affordable workforce and senior housing, and access and rights-of-
way. CISD authorized the acquisition of approximately 125 acres of property for the
public uses and purposes of school and administrative facilities and access and rights-of-
way. The City and CISD have a long relationship of operating facilities in a cooperative
manner to benefits the residents of Coppell and the school children of CISD, for example,
use of City parks for CISD activities. The City's proposed acquisition for parkland is
adjacent to the majority of CISD's proposed acquisition for school facilities so the sites
may be used co-jointly. A map of the condemnation areas is shown in Figure 9 in
Appendix A. Continued meetings with the City of Dallas and C-B representation along
with CISD and the City of Irving have been offered by the City in order to come to
mutual dispute resolution of the need for facilities.
Community comments during the planning process have indicated a desire for the City to
take the initiative for the TXU Study Area and purchase the southern approximately 450
acres of the site, primarily for recreation uses. Coppell has become recognized as a
premier place to live in the metroplex. Developing part of the TXU Study Area as a
major recreational asset, with fishing and active and passive recreational opportunities,
will further enhance the image, and value, of the community.
Should the City decide to acquire a significant portion of the TXU Study Area, for
recreational and low density housing, a the owner of a $350,000 home would pay
approximately $228 per year in additional property taxes to amortize the debt for the
purchase of 450 acres of land.57 Assuming the CISD continues with its plan to participate
in the purchase, as indicated by the school district’s intention to acquire approximately
120 acres for future school needs, the annual property taxes for the same $350,000 home
would be $162.58
57 This scenario assumes the City purchases the land for $1.25 per s.f., resulting in a $25.5 million cost, with annual
debt service of $2.5 million, which equates to a 6.28 mil levy, as calculated by the City Treasurer.
58 This scenario assumes the same $1.25 per s.f. land cost. For approximately 330 acres, the City’s cost of $18
million would have an annual debt service of $1.85 million, which equates to a 4.62 mil levy, as calculated by the
City Treasurer.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 58 of 69
B. NORTHEAST STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
In a similar process to that of the TXU Study Area, a development alternative was considered for
the Northeast Study Area. The alternative that was considered is shown in Figure 2 in
Appendix A.
The proposed future land uses for the Northeast Study Area are consistent with zoning
designations by the City of Lewisville and Future Land Use designations by the City of
Carrollton. Future Land Uses for the Northeast study area are categorized as follows:
Light Industrial consists of 35 acres, all of which are located in Denton County south of
Highway 121.
Commercial consists of 139 acres the northern tip of which lies at the intersection of I-35
and Highway 121.
Medium Commercial consists of 105 acres and abuts I-35 to the east from north of
Frankford road south to the intersection of I-35 and President George Bush Highway.
Low Density Residential Conservation consists of 693 acres of which approximately 140
acres are currently ponds or lakes.
Low Density Residential Recreation consists of 403 acres of which approximately 33
acres are water.
Open Space consists of 100 acres roughly situated between Timber Creek and Elm Fork
Trinity River.
Park consists of 26 acres between the Cities of Coppell and Lewisville.
All but 93 acres of the Northeast Study Area is in the 100 year floodplain.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 59 of 69
VI. GOALS AND POLICIES
A. A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
The Intergovernmental Cooperation Element is intended to help define a long-term vision for
the future of the region, one that is shared by residents and guides public and private actions to
help achieve that vision. The following development issues were refined during the planning
process and are addressed by Element goals, policies and implementation items.
Plan for growth and development. Recent development proposals in adjacent
jurisdictions have emphasized the importance of planning for, and effectively managing,
growth through a cooperative intergovernmental stakeholder process that results in
predictable and equitable development decisions early in the planning and development
review process - at times when they can have the most significant impact on development
patterns.
Protect and promote valuable resources. To retain the quality of life that attracts
residents and business owners to Coppell, the element describes the resources to be
protected and potential strategies to protect those resources, including protection and
conservation of critical environmental areas, including floodplains, rivers, streams and
wetlands, protection of woodland areas and heritage trees, and the retention of
meaningful green spaces.
Ensure land use compatibility. Land use compatibility is essential to protect the viability
and the integrity of residential neighborhoods, the desirability of commercial centers and
the functionality of industrial areas. To these ends, the Plan element identifies effective
strategies to:
• Protect neighborhoods from encroachment of incompatible uses - This means that a
combination of buffers, design features and limited segregation through zoning will
ensure that transitions between different land uses will mitigate potential off-site
impacts (noise, traffic, glare) that would infringe on neighbors.
• Protect and enhance corridors - the roadways that provide access to and through the
City shape visitors' and residents' opinions of the City. Ensuring that there is
adequate capacity to accommodate proposed development traffic demands and land
uses are compatible with the desired character of the community will make the City a
more attractive place to live, work and conduct business.
Coordinate growth decisions with other jurisdictions. Coordination is essential to
ensure that decisions of service providers and adjoining communities support regional
growth goals, resulting in more efficient use of taxes and fees. Cooperative and
coordinated planning efforts should strive to ensure that long-term regional growth
needs are met and foster the vitality of the region. The Element addresses land use
patterns and infrastructure at the edges of communities and provide a template for
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 60 of 69
coordinated decision-making in these areas.
Coordinate growth with provision of adequate public facilities and services. One of
the greatest growth management challenges is coordinating the efficient development of
infrastructure with the development of land uses that create demands for that
infrastructure. The Element provides a framework for coordinating public investments
by indicating the location, use, intensity and timing of development, and matching that
with fully funded capital improvement.
Coordinating with other communities and service providers. To provide cost-effective
services, other communities and service providers need to know the location, intensity,
timing and amount of new development. The Element should provide guidance on all of
these aspects of development.
Maintain an adequate transportation network. The transportation system affects most
citizens' quality of life on a daily basis. To ensure that the transportation system
continues to effectively serve the needs of residents and businesses, the Element should
serve as a guide for public investments and development decisions in ways that:
$ Maintain adequate road capacity and minimize delays due to traffic congestion;
$ Maintain road safety, so that roads are safe for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists,
as well as the residents and businesses located along the roads;
$ Protect primary road corridors from inappropriate development patterns and to
protect the long-term viability of the corridor and to prevent future blight; and
The goals for roadways in the regions should be to provide safe, efficient transportation
for the mobility of people and goods. The roadway system is the economic backbone of
the transportation system and, as such, primary importance is dependent upon new
development to help fund upgrades and the provision of future roadways.
Maintain fiscal integrity. The quality of life in Coppell and the region is contingent on
each respective City's continued ability to provide quality services at a reasonable cost
to taxpayers. To achieve these ends, the Element should describe the City's strategies
to:
• Enhance the local property and sales tax bases more rapidly than the fiscal obligations
for capital facilities, operations and maintenance;
• Ensure that new development funds the costs of capital facilities and services required
to serve that new development;
• Ensure that facilities and services are planned in a way that allows ongoing operations
without significant increases in the costs to residents and businesses; and
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 61 of 69
B. RECOMMENDED GOALS AND POLICIES
The following terms are used throughout the Element to convey key concepts:
Goal: Description of a desired state of affairs for the community and region in
the future. Goals are the broad, public purposes toward which policies and
programs are directed. In this Element, goals are phrased to express the desired
results of the Element; they complete the sentence "Our goal is to...."
Policy: Statements of government intent against which individual actions and
decisions are evaluated.
Strategy: Individual tasks or accomplishments which, taken together, will enable the
City to achieve goals and policies. Strategies are the basis for implementation of the
Element by identifying and recommending specific courses of action.
The goals, policies and strategies of this Element have been developed to describe how
Coppell will meet the challenge of preparing for future development. There are three
principles that should be considered when interpreting and implementing each goal or policy
as it applies to public decisions:
• Suitability of the project for the site on which it is located, which recognizes that
different activities have different site needs and that the appropriateness of a use
depends on many aspects of the natural and built environment;
• Compatibility of the project with adjacent development, which ensures the enjoyment
and use of one’s property against encroachment from neighboring activities; and
• Sustainability, which ensures that today’s public and private developments will not
sacrifice the quality of life for tomorrow’s residents.
Goal 1 – Shared Communication
Foster timely and effective communication among local government jurisdictions regarding
planning and development in the metropolitan area.
Policy 1.1: Initiate cooperative planning efforts with neighboring municipalities, in particular the Cities
of Irving, Carrollton, Dallas and Lewisville, to facilitate implementation of the goals, policies and
strategies identified in the Comprehensive Plans of each city.
Policy 1.2: Promote expanded working partnerships between regional planning agencies to perform
professional planning functions and provide information and recommendations to elected and appointed
bodies regarding development and public improvements for development that is adjacent to or impacting
a bordering community.
Policy 1.3: Continue to meet with neighboring communities to resolve possible inconsistencies between
the City’s plan and that of adjoining communities.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 62 of 69
Goal 2 – Smart Growth Cooperation
Encourage government jurisdictions in the metropolitan area to work together in
implementing policies consistent with Comprehensive Plan recommendations and the
principles of Smart Growth.
Policy 2-1: Encourage local jurisdictions in the metropolitan area to develop a consistent regional
perspective on future growth consistent with the principles of Smart Growth. The City should convene
initial meetings of local officials from area jurisdictions, as well as a broad range of stakeholders in the
metropolitan area, to discuss Smart Growth issues and to begin to develop a statement of Smart Growth
principles to guide future growth in the metropolitan area.
Policy 2-2: Encourage cities within the region to adopt adequate public facility and service requirements
on all new growth and development that impacts other cities, school districts and service providers in the
region that will either (a) deny development if adequate public facilities (at adopted regional levels of
service) are not available at the time of development; or (b) require that development approval assure that
funding of all deficiencies and new growth related facility and service needs will be met through adopted
and fully funded five year capital improvement programs and developer contributions.
Policy 2-3: Encourage growth in the City of Coppell and the broader metropolitan area consistent with
the concept of sustainable development that emphasizes the interdependent relationship between
economic vitality and environmental quality. The City should provide leadership in promoting the
concept of a sustainable metropolitan region that could support a diverse and vibrant economy, while still
protecting the integrity of the natural air, water, and land systems that support life.
Policy 2-4: Encourage multi-jurisdictional alliances among local communities to promote the
compatibility of federal and state highway projects with Smart Growth principles.
Policy 2-5: Execute intergovernmental cooperation memorandums of understanding with other
government jurisdictions in the metropolitan area. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a written
document that could be used to define the expectations, responsibilities, terms, and conditions of a
proposed working relationship between the City of Coppell and another government or public sector
organization. An MOU would be an important first step in achieving a more formal and detailed
intergovernmental agreement by establishing mutually acceptable policies and procedures about how the
subsequent agreement will be crafted and negotiated. A MOU would facilitate the efforts of the City and
other jurisdictions to build trust and work towards a more productive relationship by describing an
explicit framework for dialogue and collaborate work. Possible MOU applications include establishing
metropolitan efforts to encourage Smart Growth and implementing or expanding intergovernmental
shared services.
Policy 2-6: Support the efforts of the cities in the region to adopt and implement comprehensive plans
encompassing the principles of Smart Growth, intergovernmental cooperation, and consistency.
Policy 2-7: Encourage coordination among local jurisdictions and state and federal agencies to protect
known environmentally sensitive areas, open spaces, and natural resource areas from premature
development. The City should take the lead in promoting effective environmental stewardship of the
metropolitan area’s significant and unique natural resource assets.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 63 of 69
Goal 3 – Shared Services
Pursue expanded collaboration among government jurisdictions and agencies to share
services and facilities more cost-effectively when providing public services in the metropolitan
area.
Policy 3-1: Support the creation of an Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Cooperation or
comparable organization to foster more effective intergovernmental cooperation among local, state, and
federal agencies in the region. The purpose of the advisory commission would be to foster a closer
partnership among local governments and the local representatives of key federal and state agencies, and
to serve as a vehicle of communications through which government agencies in the metropolitan area can
meet to discuss and resolve shared problems.
Policy 3-2: Encourage intergovernmental collaboration in the siting, design, and use of facilities and
services in Coppell and the region. The City should promote the concept that public buildings should
make provision for community meeting spaces and potential shared use by other community
organizations. The City will continue to work with each School District to share the use of buildings and
sites where possible.
Policy 3-3: Continue to work cooperatively with each School District to promote shared use of facilities
and to plan for new school sites within the City. The City will continue to meet periodically with
representatives of each School District to share information about facilities needs and community growth
patterns and projections. The City will seek to work cooperatively with each School District in identifying
potential sites for new schools and, to the extent possible, seek to provide for the location of new school
sites adjacent to existing or proposed public parks.
Policy 3-4: Maintain existing shared service agreements with neighboring communities and explore
opportunities for additional joint efforts to provide public facilities and services. Where possible and
appropriate, the City will seek to enter into written agreements with other jurisdictions or agencies to
formalize existing informal arrangements to share services and facilities. A key focus of the City’s efforts
to share services will be to maintain or improve the existing level of services and equitably fund
necessary improvements.
Policy 3-5: Continue periodic meetings of mayors and administrators of all cities and towns to identify
opportunities to share services.
Policy 3-6: Arrange regular meetings between the agency heads responsible for providing services such
as police and fire protection, streets, water and sewer service and their counterparts in adjoining cities to
explore opportunities to eliminate inefficiencies and duplication of services with a view toward
implementing all of the City’s Comprehensive Plan recommendations including the maintenance of long-
term growth and development options.
Goal 4 – Consistent Development Standards and Planning Goals
Encourage government agencies in the metropolitan area to adopt and implement consistent
land development policies, standards, and review procedures and to resolve inconsistencies
between Comprehensive Plans.
Policy 4-1: Initiate efforts with local jurisdictions to update plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision codes,
and related development regulations to provide consistent standards and requirements among jurisdictions
regarding development. The City should provide leadership in convening initial discussions among
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 64 of 69
officials responsible for planning and zoning to identify opportunities for establishing compatible
standards. The City will encourage other jurisdictions to work to apply consistent Smart Growth standards
to promote land use compatibility between existing and new uses.
Policy 4-2: Encourage consistency in the official mapping efforts of the County, City and adjacent
jurisdictions to ensure effective coordination for land use, future streets, highways, schools, parks, and
other infrastructure in the metropolitan area.
Policy 4-3: Work to jointly adopt a regional land use plan that is acceptable to all affected jurisdictions as
a means of eliminating inconsistencies between the comprehensive plans of Coppell and its neighboring
jurisdictions.
Policy 4-4: Identify and evaluate opportunities to negotiate intergovernmental agreements to address
coordination issues.
Policy 4-5: Strongly encourage each community in the region to not make incremental decisions on
zoning map amendments, conditional use permit applications and land divisions (subdivision plats) that
may negatively impact adjoining communities.
Policy 4-6: Encourage each local unit of government to prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Plan that
coordinates land uses, policies and strategies with adjoining communities.
Policy 4-7: Continue to use intergovernmental agreements and other cooperative efforts to address and
resolve intergovernmental issues.
Policy 4-8: Establish effective and funded capital improvement programs, to fully address the impact of
growth and development in one city upon other cities, school districts and service providers.
Goal 5 – Regional Cooperation and Resources
Work cooperatively to protect the region’s natural assets, support regional planning efforts,
and improve the quality of life throughout the region.
Policy 5-1: Explore future multi-modal transit-based options to address long-term transportation needs.
Policy 5-2: Work closely with the Metropolitan Planning Organization and each adjoining local unit of
government to adequately provide and fund the transportation network.
Policy 5-3: Continue to work with adjoining units of government to plan for and to implement a system
of environmental corridors to connect major parklands and open space areas, to convey stormwater, to
protect wildlife habitat and provide interconnected wildlife habitat corridors, and to provide opportunities
for interconnected trails.
Policy 5-4: Encourage the consideration of the City acquiring a portion of the TXU Study Area for
recreational uses, including to include participation of adjacent communities.
Policy 5-5: Work with other units of government to develop and coordinate stormwater management
planning and to work to develop consistent ordinances and regulations.
Policy 5-6: Encourage the consideration of alternative strategies and techniques to resolve
intergovernmental disputes in a timely fashion consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Prior to initiating
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 65 of 69
legal action regarding intergovernmental conflicts, the City will assess the potential for using alternative
methods, such as cooperative planning, informal negotiation, facilitated negotiation, conflict resolution
mediation, and binding arbitration. Mediators used by the City should agree to comply with the Ethical
Standards of Professional Responsibility of the Association for Conflict Resolution.
C. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION – ADMINISTRATION AND STRATEGIES
This Element provides for the implementation and ongoing administration of the Comprehensive
Plan by describing the processes for monitoring and amending the plan over time, explaining
specific strategies required to achieve the plan’s goals and objectives, and scheduling the
implementation of plan strategies.
Plan Monitoring
This Plan element is intended to serve as a guide for public and private development and land
use decisions. As local and regional conditions change, changes to the policies (including maps)
and strategies will be required to keep the plan current. While specific procedures for
amendment should be adopted by ordinance, the following paragraphs outline the process for
monitoring and amending the plan.
The City, in conjunction with participating communities and providers, should conduct an annual
review to determine its progress in achieving plan goals, objectives and strategies. During this
review, factors should include evaluating development decisions (e.g., zoning changes,
subdivisions, building permits and public works projects) that have been made by the City and
other jurisdictions, growth trends and the progress made in accomplishing the strategies listed in
this Plan element. The result of the annual review may be to recommend revisions to policies,
the future land use map or the implementation program.
Implementation Program
Successful implementation of the Plan results from many individual actions by the City, other
public jurisdictions, and private decision-makers over the course of many years. The vision,
goals and objectives describe what the community wants to become and the policies describe
how decision-makers should respond to varied circumstances. To accomplish the plan’s goals
and objectives, each of the cities in the region will need to work cooperatively to accomplish
many tasks throughout the life of the plan.
The following recommendation implementation schedule exhibit schedules actions and
recommends an initial work program, which should be updated annually to reflect community
accomplishments, new approaches to community issues, changing conditions, shifting priorities
and new demands. The Exhibit also lists specific actions recommended to achieve the Plan's
goals. This list is not intended to be exhaustive or all inclusive -- the cities, service providers,
County and other public and private entities will take numerous actions throughout the life of
this plan to achieve the community goals. This list is intended to identify the highest priority
tasks to be pursued in the near term over the next several years.
The Work Program should be reviewed on an annual basis to identify the previous year’s
accomplishments and to modify the work program tasks establishing a reasonable timeline for
key plan implementation tasks. The Implementation Strategies matrix is a tool for establishing
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 66 of 69
activity priorities (Exhibit 20). The Implementation Program is intended to be the most dynamic
component of the Plan. Through annual updates, the City can ensure that the Plan continues to
serve the community and region effectively. The list of implementation tasks provides the
following information in each column:
Task Number - the number of the implementation strategy to allow for future
referencing of City activities.
Action- description of the specific strategy being recommended to implement the
Plan.
Priority/Schedule - a ranking of importance based on its priority relative to other
similarly-classed strategies. The ranking abbreviations are labeled in the following
manner:
1 = This is a critical task and should be undertaken as soon as possible. Necessary
for immediate implementation of the Plan. To occur now.
2 = This is a very important task with a sense of urgency. Necessary to
implement the Plan. To occur within one (1) year.
3 = This is an important task but there is no immediate sense of urgency. This
task will help implement the Plan. To occur within three (3) years.
Tool - the document or action necessary to carry-out the strategy.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 67 of 69
Exhibit 20: Implementation Strategies
Task
Number
Action Item Priority Action Tool
1 The City of Coppell should enter into discussions with adjoining
units of government to determine if intergovernmental
coordination and cooperation can be accomplished, including
the cities of Dallas, Irving, Carrolton, Lewisville and Flower
Mound, the Coppell and Carrolton-Farmers Branch school
districts, TRA, and NCTCOG.
1
Intergovernmental
Agreements
2 Initiate cooperative planning processes with all adjoining
neighboring units of government on the City's periphery and
aimed at identifying and preserving valued open spaces and to
maintain distinctions between residential and non-residential
uses.
2 Outreach
3 The City should periodically review existing interlocal and
intergovernmental agreements and discuss implementation of
the agreements with each of the affected units of government
covered by the agreements:
• to look for opportunities to expand the agreements to
cover additional joint ventures;
• to improve cooperation and coordination, including
coordinating budgetary expenditures and capital
improvement programs;
• to discuss opportunities to eliminate inefficiencies and
duplication of services.
2 Annual Review;
Outreach
4 City Planning staff should regularly communicate work with the
Planning staff of adjoining jurisdictions and hold quarterly
planner's workshops for all planners within the region. Meeting
locations should be rotated among communities.
3 Outreach;
Workshops
5 The City should continue the intergovernmental committees
currently in place and look for additional opportunities to
establish ongoing, topic-specific intergovernmental committees
to ensure effective communication with other units of
government aimed specifically at addressing land use
compatibility, the provision and funding of facilities and
services and opportunities that promote the economic well-being
and quality of life of the region.
2 Outreach
6 Work to establish, in conjunction with adjoining communities
and providers, a local Intergovernmental Planning Organization,
possibly as a sub-group of the NCTCOG, focused on improving
communication and coordination among adjoining communities.
3 Outreach
7 Continue to work with the NCTCOG to incorporate the
transportation-related capital improvements identified in the
City's Capital Improvement Program and annual capital budget
into the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program and to
coordinate City expenditures and improvements with those of
adjoining jurisdictions, whenever possible..
2
Transportation
Improvement
Program
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 68 of 69
Task
Number
Action Item Priority Action Tool
8 Establish with adjoining jurisdictions agreed-upon future land
uses and service levels.
1 Intergovernmental
Agreements
9 Participate in the comprehensive and strategic planning
processes of other jurisdictions and service providers, including
the school districts, and invite their participation in Coppell’s
planning processes.
1 Outreach
10 Review extraterritorial development proposals to avoid land use
conflicts.
1 Ongoing;
Monitoring
11 Review extraterritorial plans and officially map future streets,
highways, parks, and other infrastructure to ensure adequate
future facilities.
2 Ongoing;
Monitoring
12 Notify adjoining jurisdictions and providers about proposed
developments and rezonings.
1 Ongoing;
Reporting
13 Monitor budgeting and capital improvement plan processes in
adjoining jurisdictions for opportunities to coordinate
improvements.
3 Ongoing;
Monitoring
14 Prepare an annual update and report to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council regarding efforts to work together
with other local jurisdictions. Copies of the report should be
posted on the City web site or transmitted to other local
governments.
2 Annual Report
15 Transmit to neighboring jurisdictions an annual progress report
summarizing Comprehensive Plan amendments considered
during the year, an outline of upcoming projects and public
improvements affecting the Comprehensive Plan, and an
overview of potential comprehensive planning issues to be
considered in the upcoming year.
3 Annual Report
16 Provide timely notifications regarding proposed rezonings or
conditional use permits in the City that are within 175 feet of an
adjoining jurisdiction to the clerk and chief-elected official of
that jurisdiction. In addition, the City should also provide
regular electronic communications regarding meeting agendas,
development trends, and ongoing metropolitan planning issues
to neighboring jurisdictions.
2 Outreach
17 Initiate regular meetings of planning leaders and officials to
discuss metropolitan planning and growth. Such meetings could
include an annual all-day meeting of public and private sector
leaders from the metropolitan area to discuss planning, service
delivery, economic development and quality of life issues.
2 Outreach;
Meetings
18 Sponsor joint training workshops for members of local planning
commissions and advisory committees regarding planning
commission procedures, model ordinances and best practices,
and contemporary planning issues.
3 Outreach;
Workshops
19 Use intergovernmental planning organizations to promote
intergovernmental communication and cooperation and to
pursue the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan
recommendations.
2 Outreach
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ELEMENT
December 8, 2005
FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 69 of 69
Task
Number
Action Item Priority Action Tool
20 Continue to provide information about the City Comprehensive
Plan to community organizations and other government
jurisdictions through presentations, displays, and periodic
communications.
2 Outreach
21 Promote continuing education and ongoing community dialogue
regarding growth issues in the metropolitan area. 2 Outreach
22 Maintain a City web site providing current information about the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. 3 Ongoing
23 Assess alternative methodologies and identify those that are the
most appropriate to address intergovernmental issues prior to the
beginning of negotiations.
2 Strategic Plan
24 Support and participate in area-wide or regional planning efforts
related to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2 Outreach;
Coordination
25 The City will encourage area jurisdictions to participate in
ongoing efforts to address school, transportation system and
other infrastructure issues and will continue to participate as a
member of the Metropolitan Planning Organization.
2 Outreach;
Coordination
26 The City will continue to coordinate with the regional, county
and other state agencies regarding local planning issues, and will
continue to meet with other government jurisdictions to resolve
possible inconsistencies between their plans and policies and the
Comprehensive Plan.
2 Outreach;
Coordination
27 Establish a committee to explore the viability of purchasing a
portion of the TXU Study Area for recreational purposes and
make recommendations to City Council. Issues to be considered
may include an update of the City’s park and recreation facilities
plan, whether to purchase additional land for parks, and if land
is to be purchased, how much, whether to purchase the land
independent of or in partnership with other jurisdictions, the
types of recreational facilities to be provided and the timeline for
providing those facilities.
2 Parks and
Recreation
Advisory
Committee
28 Delegate a role for the City’s Planning Commission to monitor
and respond to development proposals in the study areas and to
serve as the primary entity to communicate and coordinate with
adjacent communities regarding land use and development.
2 Planning
Commission
APPENDIX A
Table of Figures
Figure 1: City of Lewisville Zoning Map
Figure 2: Northeast Study Area Map
Figure 3: City of Carrollton Future Land Use Map
Figure 4: City of Coppell Future Land Use Map
Figure 5: TXU Study Area Map
Figure 6: City of Irving Future Land Use Map
Figure 7: TXU Alternative Development Concepts
Figure 8: Business Park Concept
Figure 9: Condemnation Area Map
Figure 10: Land Use Inventory Map
General study area
Denton Creek
Elm Fork Tr in ity RiverFurneaux CreekT im b er Creek
Dudley Branch
I
n
dianDudley Bra n c hMOORESTEMMONS
INTERSTATE 35E
FRANKFORD
PARKWAY DICKERSONEISENHOWERTR
A
D
E
HILLHALSEY
LAKE VISTA
A
L
L
E
N
PHI
LLI
PSG I B B S
VI
LLAGEC R E E K
LEMAY
CO VEDEFOREST
PINYONVISTA RIDGE
VISTA RIDGE MALL
SUSAN
PATTON
MEADOWGLENQUAIL COMMODOREGREENWAY
EAGLE
MAPLELEAF
JACKSON
SPYGLASSHOOD
BRADLEY
WOO DM OOR TEALROSEMEADEINDIAN
MEADOW RUNDIX
O
N
BOOTHADMIRALITYRAVEN
CRIBBS
MOCKINGBIRDROBIN
ORIOLE
PETERS COLONY
BLANTONASPENWAYLAKEVIEW
BARCLAYMAC ARTHUR
LESLIE
SUGARBERRY
CREEKSIDEWAINWRIGHT
MARITIMEREDCEDAR WAYPARKWOODPENINSULA
MARLEE
DEANNSANTA FE
TAOSFINCHDUNCAN
L
AKE PARKDE FOREST
HOLLYWOODTIMBER RIDGECHARLOTTE
F O R E S T H I L L MESQUITECHERRYBARKJOHNSON
NIMITZ
ASHFORD
WOODLAKE
M ACKIEHARWELLSTRATFORDLEE
SHADOWCREST CAMBRIDGESHIRESPARROW CASTLE CREEKGLADE POINT
SWALLOW LAKE FORESTCROWLEYBEAU
CARDINAL
THOMPSO N
GREENG LEN
PARR
H I G H L A N D
B I T T E R N U TANDOVERGREENTREE ANDREWHAVENCREST MCINNISHNASHRIVERCHASEBEVERLYLAGUNAWARREN
RAINTREE
C H E S H I R E
LANSDOWNECOVENTRYCOATS
LO CKHAVENCAMBRIDGE MANORWESTWINDALENDALE BAYBRENTWOOD
PARKERSILVERADOGLENMEREWILDERNESSM A G N O L IA
WILTSHIRE
STARLEAF
MIL
L
ISMAILI CENTERSTI
LL FORESTPINTAIL
EAGLEPOINT
MESQUITEWOODFOUNTAIN
GRAPEVINE CREEK BROOKSHIRELONGMEADOWBROKEN BOW
REDWOODSIMMONSBURNSKIMBLE KOURTS H O R E W O O D
DRI
FTWOODH OM EW O O D
BROWN
INDIAN ROCK
ROUNDROCK
A U S T I N ISLAND BAYCYPRESS
M A R IN E R S
N O RT H S H O R E
STEMMONS
DEFOREST
INTERSTATE 35E ROSEMEADEINDIANIN
TE
R
STATE 35E
MCINNISHLegend
County
Primary Highway
Secondary Highway
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Private Road
Access Ramp
Other
Trail
Water
Historic Overlay
Park/Open Space
Streams
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use
Neighborhood Commercial
Public/Institutional
Freeway Commercial
Regional Retail
Light Industrial
Freeway Office
Floodplain
FLU Study AreasLand Use
Open Space
ROW
Low Density Residential Recreation
Low Density Residential Conservation
Park
Low Density Residential
Senior Housing
Workforce Housing
Medium Commercial
Commercial
School
School Admin
Light Industrial
°
0 0.60.3
Miles
Future Land UseN-E Study Area
Please use this map as a guide and not as definitive information. The areas depicted by this map are approximate and are provided for illustrative purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness, correctness, and timeliness of information presented within this map, the burden for determining appropriateness for use rests solely with the user. This map is provided "as is" with no waranties, express or implied.
Map Document: (G:\Clients\Coppell, TX\Maps\Future Land Use.mxd)12/1/2005 -- 1:43:04 PM Data Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments
M E
E
M
E
E
M
E
H
E
E
E
H
E
E
E
E
E
H
E
M
E
EH
M
E
E
HUTTON RDHEBRONPKWYHEBRON PKWY
KELLY BLVD
FRANKF
O
R
D
R
D
KELLY BLVDMARSH LNKELLER SPRINGS RD
JOSEY LNBELT LINE RDKELLY BLVDWHITLOCK LN KELLER SPRINGS RD
CROSBY RD
PRES GEORG
E
B
U
S
H
T
U
R
N
P
I
K
E JOSEY LNOLD DENTON RDDICKERSON PKWYBELT LINE RD
VALW
O
O
D
LUNA RDROSEMEADE PKWYPKWYSH 121PRES GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKESANDY LAKE RD
PLANO PKWY
FRANKFORD RD
TRINITY MILLS RD
Future Land Use Map
City of Carrollton, Texas
E
M
H
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Attached
Multi-Family
Low Intensity (FAR less than 0.5:1)
Medium Intensity (FAR between 0.5:1 and 1:1)
High Intensity (FAR 1:1+)
RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
PARK, RECREATION, & OPEN SPACE
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
Industrial
Public Park / Recreation
Open Space
School, Police or Fire Station, Etc.
Private Park / Recreation
MIXED USE / URBAN
Approximate Boundary
Possible Redevelopment Area
NORTH
1,000'2,000'3,000'4,000'5,000'
1/4 Mile 1/2 Mile 1 Mile3/4 Mile
Adopted by City Council on Feb 18, 2003
Resolution No. 2672
NOTE: This is not a zoning map.
This is only a graphic representation of the Comprehensive Plan, which should be
referred to when using this map. This map is very general in its representation, and
does not identify specific uses for individual parcels, as the Zoning Map does.WEBBCHAPEL RDMIDWAY RDTRINITY MILLS RD MIDWAY RDMARSH LNJOSEY LNCARROLLTON PKWY
Low Intensity
Medium Intensity
High Intensity
Grapevine CreekAquaductStreamStreamREGENTROYALFREEPORT27THSTATE HWY 121PARKWAY
HEARTZRODEOBETHEL SCHOOL
COUNTY LINEVAN ZANDT
E
S
T
E
R
S
AIRLINEACESTATE
VALLEY RANCH
INTERSTATE 35EHIGHLAND
CIMARRON
C O PPELLLODGESANTA FERA
NCHVI
EWRUBY
COWBOYSTR
A
D
E
FRANKFORD
MOCKINGBIRDFRITZCOTTON HILLGATEWAY
FALCON
SADDLEHORNR I V E R C H A S E
MARKET PINYONSTERLINGA
L
L
E
N
VISTA11TH
S O U T H W E S T E R N
B E T H E LPHI
LLI
PSNA
T
CHE
S
L A K E V I S T A
OAKCLIFFSIDE
KAYE
HALIFAXPATRIOT G I B B S
VI
LLAGEC R E E K
P
E
LI
C
A
NHARRIS
HORI
ZONSTEMMONS
C O VE EISENHOWERBLUE JAY
DEFOREST
PLANTATION
B U R N S
PARK VALLEY
BROOKS
12TH
MALLARD
COOPER
CANYON
BALL PARK
SELENEALEX
PARK GIFFORDMOOREW ATERVIEW
BRICKNELLVINEYARDROCKBROOKCASALACYW OODHURSTMEADOWGLEN8THDALTONSQUAIL COMMODOREBARCLAYCOTTONW OO D
SHADOWCREST
MINYARD
LEE
GRAPEVINE MILLSGREENWAY
CROSBYL Y N D S IE
CRESTVIEW
STATESMAN
NORTHLAKE
WATERS
RANCH
EAGLE MAPLELEAF
VILLAW OO D
W I N D Y H O L L O W
BRIARGLEN
MEADOWCREEK
PA R K V I E W
SPYGLASSHOOD
LAKESHOREWALTONNORTHPOINT
TUPELO
RED RIVER
W O O D M O O R
EDGEWOODGRAHAMTEALCOWBOYWINDING HOLLOWCL
UB
RI
DGE
WRANGLER
FRONTAGE
ANDRE
MARTEL
TIGOASW ANOAKBEND
DYNAMODIX
O
N
JASMINEC A R T E R
MUSTANGI
NDI
ANKI
L
OWA
T
TKILBRIDGECHRISTI TIMBER RIDGEFALLKIRKC ON D ORLONDONBEECHWOOD
FALLSMA
D
I
S
ONMCINNISH
LBJWHISPERING HILLSRAVEN
MCIVERCURRENCYCOSBIE
CRIBBS
EL
M FORKCRESTSIDESANDERSSANDY KNOLLCANALCYPRESS
D O G W O O D
HEATHER GLENHALSEYWILLET C O R A L
V IS T A R ID G E M A L L
HOLLYLAKEVIEW
SIMMONSWAVERLYSUGARBERRY
LAYTONBRIAR
WALESMARITIMEPARKWOODFAIRWAYPENINSULA
MARLEE
DEANNDICKENSCORPORATERI
DGEMONTLEXINGTONAVALON
FINCHWE
S
T
E
R
N
LAKE PAR
K
VA N B E B B E R
BROCK
LOCHCOUNTRYWESTGATE
MEADOWOOD
OLD YORK
SPANISH MOSS
GARDENI
AASHFORD
BRANCHWOODRO CKCRESTWYNNPAGE HARWELLLAIRDSBERKSHI
REBRIERCROFTEXCHANGE SPRINGOAKG A T E V I E W
GRAYWOOD
B R A D F O R D
WATERSIDECASTLE CREEKHACKBERRY
L A K E R I D G E
H A W K
HAVENCRESTTOWN CENTERST E A MB O AT
SUZANNEBLUFFVIEW
GENERATORTENNYSONBULLOCKNEWPORTNASHBLACK OAKHYPERBOLICBEVERLYOLD OAKLAGUNAC R E E K V IE W
OAK GROVE
HOME DEPOTRAINTREE
TIMBERVIEW
EDINBURGH
GLENWOODWE
L
LI
N
G
T
O
N
SANDY OAKLILLIAN
HOWELLPENUELWESTWINDB A Y
M E A D O W L A R KHILLVIEW
ABBEY
ARCHER
KIRKLAND
CLAYTON
V A L L E Y L A K E
DRAYTON
GREENWICH
WRENWOOD
RIVERW ALKGRAPEVINE CREEKDOBECKACOVE CREEK
WOODWAYGEORGIANG L E N D A L E
N
OTTIN
G
HAMVISTA VI
EWMOONLIGHT
FELLOWSHIP CHESTNUTPEBBLECREEK
C
A
R
A
N
O
BENSON WOODTRANSFORMERKIMBLE KOURTPENNYWILSHIRES H O R E W O O D
S T O N E C R E S T
RANCHVIEWINTER
STATE 35E
INTERSTATE 35E
ROYALCOTTONWOODCOPPELLSTEMMONS
MOORESTATESTATE HWY 121ESTERSCORPORATEF R E E P O R T
F
R
E
E
P
O
R
T
MOORECOPPELLCOPPELLS
T
E
R
LIN
G
ALLEY
P A R K IN G L O T
ALLEY
A L L E Y
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEYALLEYALLEYALLEYALLEY Legend
County
Primary Highway
Secondary Highway
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Private Road
Access Ramp
Other
Trail
Water
Historic Overlay
Park/Open Space
Streams
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use
Neighborhood Commercial
Public/Institutional
Freeway Commercial
Regional Retail
Light Industrial
Freeway Office
Floodplain
°
0 0.70.35
Miles
Land Use PlanMap
Please use this map as a guide and not as definitive information. The areas depicted by this map are approximate and are provided for illustrative purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness, correctness, and timeliness of information presented within this map, the burden for determining appropriateness for use rests solely with the user. This map is provided "as is" with no waranties, express or implied.
Map Document: (G:\Clients\Coppell, TX\Maps\Future Land Use.mxd)12/1/2005 -- 4:12:58 PM Data Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments
South CreekVAN ZANDT
AIRLINE
RANCHVI
EWRODEOR
E
G
E
N
T
VALLEY RANCHVISTABETHELCLIFFSIDE
CIMARRONCOPPELLSOUTHWESTERNMOOREPELICAN
WRANGLER
C O W B O Y S
S A N T A F E
CRESTVIEW
NORTHLAKE
W I N D Y H O L L O W
MEADOWCREEK
LAKESHOREDYNAMOJA S M IN EKI
L
OWA
T
TCRESTSIDESANDERS CANALRUGBYHORIZONEXECUTIVELEXINGTON WE
S
T
E
R
N
W O L F C R E E K
BROCK
ENTERPRISEARMSTRONGGARDENIA
STONE GATE
RED RIVERTIGOAHACKBERRY
LAKERIDGEPARK
OLYMPUSGENERATORBULLOCKHYPERBOLICBOTTLEBRUSHRAVENSORAPEDERNALESLAK EHOWELLP E N U E L
P
O
N
D
E
R
O
S
A
ABBEY
P
R
E
S
T
O
NMOCKINGBIRD RIVERCHASE
LAREDODRAYTON
R A N C H H ILLNOCONA CORRALG L E N D A L E
S
H
O
R
T CIR
C
UIT
W A LT O N
H I D D E N H O L L O WROLLING H IL L S
CANYON CRESTPENNYTRANSFORMERNAVIDADPENFOLDSMEADOW
HOLLOW VISTA
BLUE JAYHEARTHSTONEC
R
E
S
C
E
N
T
STANTON TOWERMITCHELLPARABOLOIDHOLLOW RIDGELLANOGUAVAMAYWOODMASONSHILOHSALEM
R AN C H VIEW
NORTHLAKEMOOREMOOREHORI
ZONREGENT
VALLEY RANCH
ALLEY
ALLEYALLEY
A LLE Y
A L L E Y
A LLE Y
ALLEY
ALLEY
Legend
County
Primary Highway
Secondary Highway
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Private Road
Access Ramp
Other
Trail
Water
Utility Overlay
Historic Overlay
Park/Open Space
Streams
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use
Neighborhood Commercial
Public/Institutional
Freeway Commercial
Regional Retail
Light Industrial
Freeway Office
Floodplain
FLU Study AreasLand Use
Open Space
ROW
Low Density Residential Recreation
Low Density Residential Conservation
Park
Low Density Residential
Senior Housing
Workforce Housing
Neighborhood Commercial
Commercial
School
School Admin
Light Industrial
Utility
°
0 0.50.25
Miles
Future Land UseTXU Study Area
Please use this map as a guide and not as definitive information. The areas depicted by this map are approximate and are provided for illustrative purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness, correctness, and timeliness of information presented within this map, the burden for determining appropriateness for use rests solely with the user. This map is provided "as is" with no waranties, express or implied.
Map Document: (G:\Clients\Coppell, TX\Maps\Future Land Use.mxd)12/7/2005 -- 3:21:17 PM Data Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKESH 161AIRPORT FREE WAY
JOH
N W. CARPENTER FREE
WAY
LYNDON B JOHNSON FREEWAY
JOH
N W. CARPENTER FREE
WAY
AVE O F C H A M PIONSVALLEY RA
N
C
H P
K
WY
SADDLE HORNMACARTHUR BLVDCOWBOYS PKWYRODEO DRSA NTA FE
CI MARRO N
R ED RIV ER
R A N C H T RL
V
A
LLEY RANCH PKW Y, S
K I N WE ST PK WY
REG E NT
RIDGE POINTBENT BRANCHR O Y AL L N
F R EEPORT PKWYES TER S R D
H ACK BE RRY
CAMPUS CIR
SHORTHORNLONGHORNGATE
WA
Y DRBELTLINE RDHACKBERRY CREEKM ACARTHUR BLVDO'CONNOR RDR O YA L LN
B
U
F
F
A
L
O B
L
V
D
RO
C
H
E
L
L
E
B
L
VDL
A
S
C
O
LINA
S
B
L
V
DHI D D E N R I DG E
M EA D O W C R EEKO 'C O N N O R R DWALNUT HILL LNS TO RY RDMONTEGO BAYVALLEY VIEW LNWILLIAM DEHAESBELTLINE RDNO RTHGA TE DR
R O C H E L L E R D
C H E Y E N N E S TESTERS RDPLEASANT RUN RDCOUNT RY CLU B
STORY RDFINL E Y RD
HARVARD STBREWSTER DRSTAFFORD DRRO CHEL L E R D
N O RTHG ATE DR LE LA N D
WINGREN RDMACARTHUR BLVDCARL RDCHEMSEARCHTOM BRAN IF F D RELM FOR K OF TRINITY RIVERMARYLANDUNION BOWERP IO NE ER DR
WILDWOOD DRTR IN IT Y W ELL S P AR K
A ND
G O L F CO UR S E
IR
VING BLVD
PO SS IBL E W ET L AN D
MI TI G AT IO N AR EANURSERY RDSTATE H
WY 356 IRVING HEIGHTSUNIO N B OW E RCARL RDBRITAIN RDG RAUW YL ER RD O'CONNOR RDPIO
NEER R
D
IRBY RDIRVING BLVD
O'CONNOR RDMAIN STBRITAIN RDSI X TH S T
DEL
A
WA
R
E
CREEKSENTER RDO A KDA L E RD
MACARTHUR BLVDSHA DY G ROV E RD
PO SS IBL E W ET L AN D
M IT IG AT IO N AR EASTORY RDO AK DA LE RD
SHADY GROVE RD
BELTLINE RDL UZO N RD
F O U R T H STBRIERY RDBELTLINE RDC O N F L ANS RD
JA CK SO N RDCOMPTON AVEPIONEER D
R ESTRADA PKWY
65
LD NPROPOSED SH 161 EXTENSIONBEAR CREEKCOUNTY LINE RDINTERSTATE HWY 635
STATE HIG
H
W
AY 114
STATE HIGHW AY 161S TA TE HIG HW AY 1 83
LOOP 12WALTON WALKER BLVD, NSTATE HIGHWAY SPUR 348
STATE H IGHW AY SPUR 482LAK E
CA RO LYN
LAK E
CA RO LYN
CO W B O YS
C EN T ER
HA CK BER R Y C R EEK
CO UN T R Y C LU B
NO R T H LA KE
C O LL EG E
UN IV ER SIT Y
O F
D AL LAS
T EX AS
ST AD IU M
TR IN IT Y VIE W
PAR K
SEE T HE D O W N TO W N
D EV ELO PM EN T PLA N
CI TY O F IR VI NG
LAN D F ILL
VILB IG
L AKE
IR VIN G
MA LL
CI VIC C EN T ER
C O M PLE X
MACART HUR
HIGH SCHO OL
IRVING
HIGH SCHOOL
NIMITZHIGH SCHOOL
FU T U R E L A N D US E
RE S ID E NT IA L U SE S
SIN G L E FA M IL Y-L O W DE N S IT Y R E S IDE N T IA L
SIN G L E FA M IL Y A T T AC H E D -ME D IU M D E N SIT Y R ES ID E N TIA L
TW O F A MIL Y -DU P L E X
MU L T IPL E F A MIL Y FO U R P LE X
MU L T IPL E F A MIL Y -HIG H D E NS IT Y RE S ID E NT IA L
MIX E D D EN S IT Y R E S ID EN T IA L DIS T R IC T
MH /M AN U F A CT U R E D H O U S ING
CO M ME R C IA L U S E S
OF F IC E
OF F IC E -RE T A IL SU B -D IS TR IC T
RE T A IL
GE N E R AL B U S INE S S S UB -D IS T RIC T
LIG H T C OM M ER C IA L
HE A V Y C O M ME R C IAL
IND U S T RIA L /U T ILIT IE S /T RA N S P OR T A T ION
IND U S T RIA L
UT IL IT IE S
AIR P O R T
PU B L IC & O P E N SP A C E
PU B L IC SE M I-P UB L IC
PA R K S & O P E N SP A C E
GO L F C OU R S E (PR IV A T E)
FL O O D PL A IN
SP E C IA L U S E S
CO W B O YS C E NT E R
EN T E R TA IN M EN T S U B-D IS T R ICT
OV E R L AY D IS TR IC T S
DO W N T OW N D E VE L O P ME N T PL A N
EN T E R TA IN M EN T D IS TR IC T
PR O P W ET L A N D M IT IG AT IO N
PR O P O SE D E L M F O R K R A D
RE D E V EL O P ME N T D IST R IC T
SO U T H BE L T L INE R O A D C O R R IDO R D IS TR IC T
UR B A N CE N T E R D IS T R ICT
AIR P O R T/ S .H .1 6 1 O V E R LA Y D IST R IC
TR A N S IT M A L L O V E R LA Y
CIT Y L IMIT
RO A D S
O R I G I N A L M A P P R O DU C E D B Y :
DU N K I N , S E F K O & A S S O CI A T E S , I N C .
W A L L A C E , R O B E R T S & T O D D
B A R TO N -A S H M A N A S S O C I A T E S , IN C .
FR E I L I C H , M O R G A N , L E IT N E R & C A R L I S L E
W O R T H B L A K E & A S S O C IA TE S
IN I T I A L L Y A D O P TE D : F E B R U A R Y 2 5 , 1 9 9 7
O RD . #6 9 8 9
A Comprehensive P lan shall not const itut e zoning
regulat ions or est abl ish zoni ng dist ri ct boundaries.
Prepared 6-3-2002
Dept. of Community Development
City of Irving
FUTU RE LAND USE MAP
MARCH 21, 2002
ORDINANC E #7971 (ZC 5226)
CITY OF IR VING
FUTUR E LAND USE MAP
1 0 1 2 Miles
N
EW
S
D/FW Ai rport
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS COMMERCIAL CENTER CONCEPT NORTHLAKE VILLAGE CONCEPT BUSINESS PARK V1 BUSINESS PARK V5
&
&&
&&&&
&
&&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&&
&&
&&
&&
&&
Legend
Power Line
&Power Pole
CB Plan Boundary
Road
100-Foot Utility Buffer
City
ROW
Park
Senior Housing
Workforce Housing
School Admin
Schools
Office/Technology
Warehouse
°
0 0.40.2
Miles
Business Park
Please use this map as a guide and not as definitive information. The areas depicted by this map are approximate and are provided for illustrative purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness, correctness, and timeliness of information presented within this map, the burden for determining appropriateness for use rests solely with the user. This map is provided "as is" with no waranties, express or implied.
Map Document: (G:\Clients\Coppell, TX\Maps\Dev Alt 5.mxd)11/2/2005 -- 1:51:31 PM
Grapevine CreekAquaductIndianI 63
5
ROYALMACARTHURBELT LINE
I 35E
SANDY LAKE
FREEPORTREGENT
27THPARK WAY
HEARTZVISTA RIDGE
RODEODENTON TAPBETHEL SCHOOL
COUNTY LINEVAN ZANDTAIRLI NESTATECOPPELL H IG H L A N D
E
S
T
E
R
S
CIMARRONSAMUELLODGE INTERSTATE 35E
SANTA FE
RANCHVI
EWRUBY
COWBOYSBETHEL
VALLEY RANCH
AIRFIELD
A C E T
R
A
D
E
MOCKINGBIRDFRITZCOTTON
GATEWAY
S T A T E H W Y 1 2 1
FALCON
SADDLEHORNR I V E R C H A S EPINYON
STATE HWY 114 STERLINGA
L
L
E
N
VISTAS O U T H W E S T E R N PHI
LLI
PSNATCHES
OAKC L I F F S I D E
KAYE
HALIFAXPATRIOT L A K E V I S TA
G I B B S
V ILLA G E
CREEK
PELICANHARRIS C O VEBLUE JAY
DEFOREST
P L A N T A T IO N
B U R N S
PARK VALLEY
BROOKS
1 2 T H
EXIT 35
EXIT 33
CANYON
BALL PARK
ALEX
PARK GIFFORDMOOREW ATERVIEW
BRICKNELLCASAWOODHURST MEADOWGLEN8THQUA IL
CROSBYB
A
R
C
LA
YSHADOWCREST
MINYARD
LEE
GRE ENWAY
CRESTVIEW
STATESMAN
NORTHLAKE
WATERSRAMP
ALLEY
RANCH
V I L L A W O O D
W IN D Y H O L L O W
BRIARGLEN
MEADOWCREEK
PA R K V I E W
LAKESHORENORTHPOINT
EDGEWOODGRAHAMTEALCOWBOYWINDING HOLLOWWRANGLER
ANDRE
MARTEL
S W A N
RUGBYOAKBENDDYNAMODIX
O
N
JASMINEC
A
R
T
E
R
F O R E S T H IL L
KILBRIDGE
TIMBER RIDGELONDONHORIZONA D M I R A L I T Y
FALLSMA
D
I
S
O
N
MCINNISH
RAVENC R I B B S
ELM FORK
SANDERSCANAL
CYPRESS
WIL
L
E
T
C O R A LSIMMONS
EXIT 36B
LAYTONBRIAR
CREEKSIDEA S H L E Y
PENINSULA
MARLEECOTTONWOODDICKENSCORPORATERI
DGEMONTLEXINGTONCAMBRIAAVALON
WEST
ERNBROCK
LOCHWESTGATE
MEADOWOOD
OLD YORK
W A L N U T G R O V E
RIVER
ASHFORD
BERKSHI
REG A T E V I E W
GRAYWOOD
L A K E R I D G E
H A W K
SUZANNEBLUFFVIEW
GENERATORBULLOCKMULLRANY
HYPERBOLICBEVERLYLAGUNABRIERCROFTC R E E K V IE W
OAK GROVE
SANDY OAK
PEDERNALESCAMBRIDGE MANORPENUELBREANNAN
O
R
M
A
N
CLAYTON
LILLYG LEN LAKESRIVERW ALKDOBECKAE
XIT 3
4
LEAVALLEY
T A R A RIDGEDALES T O N E C R E S TAL
L
EYALLEYCOPPELL
ALLEYBETHEL
I 635
BETHEL BETHEL
VISTA RIDGE
STATE HWY 121I 35E
STATE HWY 121ALLEYRAMPDEFOREST
ALLEY DENTON TAPCORPORATEINTE
R
STATE 35E
STATEC O PPELLMOOREMOOREALLEYSTATE HWY 121STATE HWY 121MACARTHURRANCHVIEWLegend
Road Classification (NCTCOG)
Access Ramp
Primary Highway
Secondary Highway
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
County
Streams
Water
Under Development or Planned
Land Use Inventory
Undeveloped Non-Residential
Developed Non-Residential
Undeveloped Residential
Developed Residential
Institutional
Parks/Open Space
°
0 10.5
Miles
Land Use Inventor y
Please use this map as a guide and not as definitive information. The areas depicted by this map are approximate and are provided for illustrative purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness, correctness, and timeliness of information presented within this map, the burden for determining appropriateness for use rests solely with the user. This map is provided "as is" with no waranties, express or implied.
Map Document: (G:\Clients\Coppell, TX\Maps\Land Use.mxd)11/30/2005 -- 5:48:29 PM Data Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments; City of Coppell