BM 1999-10-21 PZMinutes of October 21, 1999
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMIISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Coppell met in pre -session at 6 p.m., and in
regular session at 6:30 p.m., on Thursday, October 21, 1999, in the Coppell Town Center, 255
Parkway Boulevard, Coppell, Texas 75019. The following members were present:
Commissioner Rick McCaffrey
Commissioner Texx Stewart
Commissioner Anna Kittrell
Commissioner Jon Nesbit
Commissioner Greg McGahey
Commissioner Sam Clark
Also present were Assistant City Engineer Mike Martin, City Attorney Bob Hager, Fire Marshal
Travis Crump, Planning Director Gary Sieb, City Planner Isabelle Moro and Sr. Administrative
Secretary Barbara Jahoda. Commissioner Drew Halsey was absent.
PRE -SESSION (Open to the Public)
1. Briefing on the Agenda.
Staff briefed the Commission on the cases. Barbara Jahoda, Sr. Administrative Secretary,
administered the oath of office to Commissioners McCaffrey and Nesbit.
REGULAR SESSION (Open to the Public)
2. Call to Order.
Commissioner McCaffrey called the meeting to order.
3. Introduction of Planning Commission Appointee.
Commissioner McCaffrey introduced and welcomed Sam Clark, who was recently
appointed to a two-year term on the Commission.
4. Election of a Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Stewart made a motion to nominate Rick McCaffrey as the Chairman.
Commissioner McGahey seconded the motion; motion carried (6-0) with Commissioners
Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed.
5. Election of a Vice Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Kittrell made a motion to nominate Texx Stewart as the Vice Chairman.
Commissioner McGahey seconded the motion; motion carried (6-0) with Commissioners
Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed.
6. Approval of Minutes dated September 16,1999.
Commissioner Clark made a motion to approve the minutes of September 16, 1999, as
written. Commissioner McGahey seconded; motion carried (6-0) with Commissioners
Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of S -1108R, PCS PrimeCo Wireless
Communications, zoning change request for property zoned A-S.U.P. (Agriculture,
Special Use Permit) to amend the Special Use Permit Site Plan to allow 2 additional
accessory cabinets at the base of an existing T.U. Electric tower located approximately
1,000' southwest of the intersection of S. MacArthur Boulevard and the T.U. Electric
transmission line easement; north of E. Beltline Road, at the request of Masterplan.
City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, showing an exhibit of
the proposal, stating Council approved this use in April, 1996. She stated that due to the
increase in volume of the wireless communication traffic in this area, this applicant needs to
expand its capacity at this facility, thereby necessitating the addition of two gray painted
metal equipment cabinets which will be screened by Nellie R. Stevens holly. Ms. Moro
went on to say that staff recommends approval of this request, subject to the conditions
outlined in the Staff Report.
William Cothrum, Masterplan, Inc., 500 S. Ervay, #112-B, Dallas, TX 75201, was present
to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions, reminding the
Commission that when PrimeCo originally came in, they located on an existing TXU tower.
Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to
speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward.
There were none.
Chairman McCaffrey closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner McGahey asked why brick veneer was not necessary for these cabinets. Ms.
Moro stated that because the cabinets are less than 150 square feet, the brick masonry
requirement does not apply. She reminded the Commission that screening of plant material
2
is required at this site, even though an irrigation system at this remote location is not being
provided, stressing if any landscaping dies, the applicant is responsible for replacing it with
the same size and type of plant material.
Commissioner Nesbit made a motion to approve Case No. S-1 108F, PCS PrimeCo
Wireless Communications, amending the Special Use Permit, subject to the following
conditions:
1) All landscaping shall be kept in healthy and growing condition.
2) Submit a color board showing all exterior building materials.
Commissioner Clark seconded the motion; motion carried (6-0) with Commissioners
Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. 5-1169, Southwestern Bell
Wireless. Inc., zoning change request from SF -9 (Single Family -9) to SF-9-S.U.P.
(Single Family -9, Special Use Permit) to allow the installation of 9 wireless antennae to
be flush -mounted on an existing recreational facility, as well as a 220 square foot
equipment cabinet along the southern elevation of the building located at 7979
Mockingbird Lane, at the request of Southwestern Bell Wireless, Inc.
Director of Planning Gary Sieb introduced the item to the Commission, showing an exhibit
of the proposal, stating that nine flush -mounted antennae would be attached to the fronton
tennis facility on Mockingbird Lane with an equipment building at the base. Mr. Sieb said
that there are several concerns that staff feels are not being met by this proposal, referring to
the Wireless Antenna section of the Zoning Ordinance, referencing the fact that these
applications should not occur in single-family zoning districts -- facilities should be
collocated on existing towers as much as possible so that they are not spread all over the
City. In addition, Mr. Sieb stated that the fronton tennis facility is a legal non -conforming
use in a residential zoning district. Because a lease payment would probably be made to the
property owner, staff is of the opinion that this would increase the value of the non-
conforming property because the cabinet could house equipment valued from $50,000 to
possibly $400,000. He went on to say that the Zoning Ordinance states that all non-
conforming uses shall be eliminated; therefore, with the additional revenue that would be
generated by leasing this property and the additional value of the improvements, staff feels
the life of this non -conforming use would be extended. Mr. Sieb went on to say that staff
recommends denial of this request.
Skip Ogle, Southwestern Bell Wireless, 15660 Dallas Parkway, Dallas, TX 75248, was
present to represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions, stating that
it's critical at this time to expand wireless service in this area of Coppell. He showed
several graphics to the Commission stressing the areas with weak or non-existent service;
i.e., Mockingbird Lane and Beltline Road. Mr. Ogle then showed graphics of what their
service would be like if they collocated on near -by existing towers or even the newly
approved Nextel tower down Beltline Road. Poor coverage would exist. Finally, Mr. Ogle
showed graphics showing excellent coverage if their antennae were mounted on the fronton
3
tennis building. Mr. Ogle then addressed staffs comment about this building being a non-
conforming use and referred to Council's approval in 1997 of Southwestern Bell Wireless
communication antennae being attached to the Park `N Fly billboard along 635 and Royal
Lane. He then read a statement in the Staff Report at that time as follows: "The City's legal
counsel is of the opinion that the placement of the antennae on the sign does not expand nor
enlarge the non -conforming structure." He went on to say that he believes the same holds
true at this location on this non -conforming use. Southwestern knows that if the billboard
on 635 and Royal goes, then they also have to go. He said the same holds true with the fron
tennis court. He emphasized that Southwestern and the wireless industry prides itself on
utilizing existing structures whenever and wherever possible.
Commissioner McGahey asked whether or not there any other existing structures adjacent
to this facility that they could use. Mr. Ogle answered "no", stating that although there are
existing TXU towers nearby, the height that they require is very minimal in order to get
proper coverage for this target area and not bleed over into surrounding antennae facilities.
A question was asked why the power pole next to the building can't be used. Mr. Ogle
answered that it would force Southwestern to go to a height of nearly 80'. When asked if
they could be attached midway, Mr. Ogle stated that it's a design issue with TXU; that their
standard is for antennae to be placed out of the way of climbing to the top of the towers.
The safety aspect was then briefly discussed. Mr. Ogle responded that an 8' masonry
screening wall will be erected around the 10' x 20' self-contained aggregate covered
equipment building, adding that all the electrical systems will be underground.
Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to
speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward.
Those speaking were:
Barbara Davidson — 790 Pelican Lane, Coppell, TX — concerned about the number
of TXU towers in the area and the fact that Southwestern hasn't thoroughly explored
the possibility of installing their antennae on one 35' above ground. Is not in favor
of extending the life of this non -conforming use.
Phil Davidson — 790 Pelican Lane, Coppell, TX — supports his wife's concerns and
endorses staffs recommendation of denial.
Jay Tabor — 807 Pelican Lane, Coppell, TX — lives right behind this facility and
feels this location is inappropriate for this use and urges denial.
Chairman McCaffrey closed the Public Hearing.
Some discussion followed regarding the possibility of researching other towers for this use,
emphasizing what the Zoning Ordinance states as improvements to a non -conforming use
which would prolong its life and the fact that these antennae will be right in people's back
yards and not in a remote location.
Commissioner McGahey made a motion to deny Case No. S-1169, Southwestern Bell
Wireless, Inc., zoning change from SF -9 (Single Family -9) to SF-9-S.U.P. (Single Family -9,
4
Special Use Permit). Commissioner Kittrell seconded the motion; motion carried (6-0) with
Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark and Stewart voting in favor of
denial. None opposed.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. S-1170, The Great Outdoors,
zoning change request from C (Commercial) to C-S.U.P. (Commercial, Special Use
Permit) to allow a 2,200 square foot sandwich shop to be located at 761 S. MacArthur
Boulevard, at the request of Brian Kirkwood.
Planning Director Gary Sieb introduced the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of
the proposal, stating that no alcohol will be served. He then stated that staff recommends
approval of this request, subject to the four conditions outlined in the Staff Report.
Brian Kirkwood, 8083 Stonebrook Parkway, Suite 1106, Frisco, TX 75034, was present to
represent this item before the Commission and answer any questions, stating that he is in
agreement with staff conditions.
Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to
speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward.
There were none.
Chairman McCaffrey closed the Public Hearing.
Referring to Condition 3 of the Staff Report, Chairman McCaffrey stated that the color of
the raceway should probably be bronze to match the existing signage at the center. Also, he
said that different colors of signage are being used at the center other than the approved
ivory signage. He recommended that the ivory of this sign match the ivory in the existing
signage at the center. The applicant was in agreement.
Commissioner McGahey made a motion to approve Case No. S-1170, The Great Outdoors,
zoning change request from C (Commercial) to C-S.U.P. (Commercial, Special Use
Permit), subject to the following conditions:
1) All parking requirements are met.
2) Signage complies with code requirements (no greater than 36 square
feet).
3) Raceway and ivory signage match tenants in shopping center. The
logo shall match the exhibit as shown to the Commission.
4) Hours of operation shall be as follows:
Monday through Saturday: 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Sunday: 11 a.m. to 9 p.m.
5
Commissioner Nesbit seconded the motion; motion carried (6-0) with Commissioners
Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed.
10. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD -14582, Woodridge Section
Five, zoning change request for property zoned PD -145 (Planned Development, Single
Family) by amending the planned development conditions as they apply to Lot 44,
Block A to permit the construction of a carport located at 130 Pinyon Lane, at the
request of Patricia Ann VanDeusen.
City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of the
proposal, giving a chronological history of zoning within the Woodridge garden home area,
stating when this neighborhood was platted in 1982, garages were not required. She
explained that the builder provided an 18' x 19' concrete parking pad at the rear of the
residences. In 1996 a committee consisting of two Planning Commission members, two
garden home property owners (one owner and one tenant), and two members of the
Homeowners Association was formed to study accessory buildings, garages and carports in
this area after a request for a carport was submitted to staff for review. Ms. Moro went on
to say that the Committee agreed that fully enclosed attached garages were the first
preference in this area; however, because of space limitation on some lots, other forms of
covered parking would be preferable to no covered parking. She went on to state that based
on this committee's findings, an Ordinance was developed, which she explained in detail.
Ms. Moro then stated that according to the Ordinance, an applicant has two options -- either
apply for a building permit if the four criteria outlined in the Ordinance can be met or go
through the Planning and Zoning/Council process. In this instance, Ms. VanDeusen could
not meet those guidelines and proposes to build a carport/utility shed three feet from the rear
property line. Ms. Moro described the building materials and style of the carport to the
Commission, explaining that typically, staff would not allow the proposed 5/8" thick brick
veneer on a principal structure, but because it is proposed to be used on an accessory
building, it would be acceptable as long as it matches the color of the principal structure.
There was some concern as to whether or not the veneer would adhere to the primary
surface and the durability issue. Ms. Moro then stated that staff recommends approval of
this request, subject to the five conditions outlined in the Staff Report.
Some discussion followed as to the actual size of this structure. Ms. Moro answered that
based on staff's calculations, this carport/utility shed will measure approximately 523
square feet. City Attorney Bob Hager was asked whether or not the proposed brick veneer
would comply with the masonry requirement of the Ordinance. Mr. Hager answered in the
affirmative.
Patricia VanDeusen, 130 Pinyon Lane, Coppell, TX, was present to represent this item
before the Commission and answer any questions, stating that because the rear of her house
is completely wood, she has concerns about using any type of bricking on this structure,
although she would be willing to do it. Ms. VanDeusen stated that some neighbors have
expressed frustration with the City concerning carport structures, feeling people living in
this area are being slighted.
0
Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to
speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward.
There were none.
Chairman McCaffrey closed the Public Hearing.
Discussion followed regarding the use of masonry on this structures and if this material is
used, that manufacturer specifications be adhered to; matching this structure to the house in
materials and color; the need for the shingles and roof pitch matching the house; utilizing a
manufactured, pre -hung door on the shed, etc. It was stressed that if the house has not
recently been painted, that this be done so that paint on both structures match. City
Attorney Hager reminded the Commission that the Planned Development regulations and
ordinance require the use of brick. Ms. Moro stated that flexibility in the placement of the
brick can be utilized; i.e., bricking the entire backside of the utility shed, leaving the carport
posts, gables and siding wood. Planning Director Sieb stated that the Ordinance that was
passed by Council with input from the community is very clear and states that the masonry
percentage should be the same as on the face of the existing house and this applicant needs
to apply 47 percent brick masonry to this carport. He emphasized that staff went to bat for
this applicant in discussions with Building Inspection with regard to brick veneer. The
Building Official agreed that it would be allowed. Mr. Sieb stated that staff is not trying to
run up the cost of this building but is trying to get some consistency within the entire City
with regard to ordinances that have been passed by Council.
Commissioner. McGahey made a motion to approve Case No. PD -14582, Woodridge
Section Five, Planned Development amendment, subject to the following conditions:
1) Submittal and approval of a color board showing all exterior building
materials of the carport.
2) The brick veneer shall match the existing residence and fulfill the 47
percent masonry requirements on the carport structure. When
applying the bricking material, adhere to the manufacturer's
installation recommendations.
3) The roof pitch and roofing materials shall match the existing residence.
4) Doors, siding, trim and paint used on this structure shall match the existing
residence.
5) Revise Carport Masonry Calculations to reflect correct percentages.
6) Engineered foundation plans will be required as part of the building permit
submittal.
7) Existing utility easements are to remain free and clear of any and all
obstructions.
7
Commissioner Stewart seconded the motion; motion carried (6-0) with Commissioners
Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed.
11. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD -177, La Chateau of
Connell, (Conceptual Plan Review), zoning change request from LI (Light Industrial)
to PD -LI (Planned Development, Light Industrial) to allow the development of a 90 -
unit retirement motel/motor hotel on approximately 8.7 acres of property located at
the southeast corner of W. Sandy Lake Road and State Road, at the request of
Charles Bandemer.
City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of the
proposal, stating that the Comprehensive Master Plan encourages a more mixed-use
development; i.e., office and retail uses for this property. She stated that this project
consists of 11 one-story French "Old World Village" architectural style buildings connected
by wide, sound and climate controlled corridors that will allow residents to walk to all
facilities while remaining under one roof. This gated and secured facility will have a
number of amenities, including an outdoor pool, cafeteria, laundry facilities, security,
limited housekeeping, open space areas, some private garages, etc. She stated that
residences can be rented on a weekly basis, but most likely will be rented on a monthly or
yearly basis for approximately $1,800 per month for a one -bedroom apartment and
approximately $2,400 per month for a two bedroom apartment -- all offered services
(activities, meals, etc.) are included in this fee. Ms. Moro reiterated a number of variances
that the applicant is requesting; i.e., number of loading spaces, dumpster waiver, height and
type of screening wall, type of parking spaces on site, etc. Ms. Moro mentioned that a large
concern for staff is the airport noise issue. Although the applicant has provided a Noise
Study Report and has stated that he will abide by the Study's recommendations, Ms. Moro
stated that staff discourages any new residential development west of Coppell Road under
the flight path and said that a letter has been received from the D/FW Airport officially
opposing this development, attached as Exhibit A. Ms. Moro showed the Commission an
exhibit of property owners within 200 feet of this area indicating support and opposition to
this case -- 7 opposition replies were received representing over 60 percent of the land area
and 3 favorable replies were received, representing 4 percent of the land area. This means
that if the Commission approves this case, it will take a 3/4 vote of Council to pass. Ms.
Moro then stated that staff recommends denial of this request, reiterating the reasons.
Charles Bandemer, 305 Dogwood Trail, Coppell, TX, 75019, was present to represent this
item before the Commission and answer any questions. Also present were Susan
Bandemer, Design Architect George Hicks and Sound Engineer Ted Carnes. Mr. Bandemer
stated that this project has been in its development for over one year and said that the
overflight situation can be remedied through hard, diligent work on his part. Susan
Bandemer, 305 Dogwood Trail, Coppell, TX, 75019, then gave a lengthy presentation of the
proposed project, sharing their vision for Coppell of a retirement facility for active seniors
55 plus, emphasizing this facility is not institutional living. She showed exhibits to the
Commission, stating that an Interior Designer will be hired, stressing amenities such as
choice of accommodations, three "delicious" meals daily in a grand dining room (not a
cafeteria), a variety of social activities, physical activities, scheduled transportation, health
and wellness programs, housekeeping services, laundry area, pool and cabana, private park
8
area, transportation for tours and trips will be offered, etc. Besides being an additional
revenue for Coppell, Mrs. Bandemer assured the Commission that this facility will not and
cannot be turned into an apartment complex, hence the Planned Development request. She
added that this first-class facility will add no additional burden on the school system
because it is for people 55+ and it will add value to the existing developments in the area.
George Hicks, architect and designer, 8314 San Cristobal, Dallas, TX 75218, then spoke,
mentioning he found a misconception in the community about the purpose of this
development. He said that because of the way this Planned Development was advertised,
nearby residents responded negatively because they thought that trailers and motor homes
would be parked on this property. When the developer held a meeting with these residents,
he said that people were relieved and changed their opinion about this development. Mr.
Hicks acknowledged there's a problem with this site as to airport noise and volunteered that
the developer will abide by the recommendations provided by Ted Carnes, noise consultant.
Mr. Hicks stated that because of the misunderstanding of what this project actually is and
the way it was advertised, he feels that the necessity of a % vote by Council is not necessary
and this miscommunication needs to be corrected between now and the November City
Council meeting. He asked for approval of this project, stating that it will be an asset to the
community and he'll enjoy working on it. Ted Carnes, 1020 Raleigh Drive, Carrollton, TX,
then addressed the Commission, stating that he works for Pelton Marsh Kinsella, Inc., and
has been doing acoustical consulting work in the Dallas area involving the D/FW Airport
for approximately 23 years. Mr. Carnes shared some history of the FAA Guidelines for
Noise Reduction Requirements in residential developments near the airport and gave the
Commission data as it relates to this property. He stated that the City of Coppell has more
stringent requirements than the FAA has in their guidelines, which is based upon the
maximum sound level vs. the average sound level of a particularly noisy Boeing 727/200,
and reminded everyone that by the end of this year these aircraft will have to meet new
requirements and the over-all noise level should be significantly reduced. Mr. Carnes
reviewed the initial conceptual design of the proposed facility and believes that it will
exceed noise level requirements of a 25 decibel outside noise reduction. He also
encouraged the P&Z Commission to approve this project with the required noise reduction
recommendations.
Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to
speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward.
The following people spoke:
Steve LeMay —107 Oakbend, Coppell, TX — Stated that when he received the notice
from the City, he returned it expressing his opposition to this project because of how
it was described in the mailing. However, now that he understands what is actually
being proposed, he and his immediate neighbors all agree that this is a very nice
facility and is something they would like to have behind them, as opposed to
something industrial and all that type of building would impose on the Oakbend
subdivision. He stated that it appears there was a great deal of approval for this
project once everyone saw what it really was and not the way it appeared to be from
the notice sent by the City.
E
Michael King — 127 Oakbend, Coppell, TX — Provided the noise issue can be
worked out, is wholeheartedly in favor of the project. He also was alarmed by the
notice, thinking it was a motel -type facility. He would much rather have this type of
planned development behind his house that's aesthetically attractive, more in line
with the residential type of setting than to see an office or light industrial -type
development be built on that property. He also spoke with several neighbors who
early on were opposed to this development because of the notice they received who
now probably support it.
Steve Preston-- 168 Branchwood, Coppell, TX — Is on the Executive Committee of
the Homeowners Association which met with the developer and the rest of the
neighborhood last Saturday and believes that most people were pleasantly surprised
with what is being proposed. Some concerns were expressed regarding what
happens if this project fails? No one wants this project to become a motel.
Some discussion ensued with the Director of Planning and the City Attorney regarding if
this proposal fails, could a motel -type facility be allowed on this property by right. The
answer was "no." Planning Director Sieb said that if this Planned Development is granted
and this developer loses funding and fails to complete the project, another facility would
have to meet the guidelines that this developer actually presented to the Commission and
Council.
Kevin Kennedy — 724 Post Oak Drive, Coppell, TX — Feels the notice sent the
neighborhood was confusing and if by not sending in a letter in favor has tied the
Council to a 3/4 vote, he feels that this was not made clear in the letter. He hopes
there is still time to get favorable letters in so that this is not tied to a 3/4 majority
vote of Council. After doing a quick count, he feels that only 4 out of 40 people
were opposed to this project at that Saturday meeting. Feels this project would
benefit being across from the City park. Said that the developer has expressed the
desire to preserve as many trees on the property as possible and would like to create
a park -like area to accommodate them. As a resident in Oakbend, he feels that noise
is not an issue, stating that in his house, his family is never bothered by airplane
noise. Says that most of the homeowners are in favor of this project.
Lauren Willet — 701 Post Oak Drive, Coppell, TX — Was frightened by the mailed
notice which said that a motor hotel was being proposed for this property. She and
neighbors did not know what that meant. She believes that most of the residents
based their negative responses on the notice, herself included. However, she now
feels that this would be a pretty entranceway into Coppell, which this City in
lacking.
Dwayne Willet — 701 Post Oak Drive, Coppell, TX — Asked if more favorable
responses were sent in, would it make a difference regarding the 3/4 vote of Council?
He added that living this close to the airport is a choice of homeowners and the
turnover in Oakbend is very fast and people find it quite acceptable to live there
with their construction standards. Since the people who would live in this
retirement community are basically renters, they would be able to move more
10
readily if the plane noise became an issue. Feels that having an entrance to Coppell
of a park, this facility, Oakbend, The Woodlands, etc., is a much nicer transition
than to have a park, a big sterile building, followed by residential communities.
Aesthetically for Coppell, he feels that this facility would be a plus.
Rick Morris — 105 Branchwood Trail, Coppell, TX — When he received notification
through the grapevine of this zoning change, because of the description, he was
very, very disturbed about it. He feels this description doesn't come anywhere close
to what the developer is proposing. He was so upset that he had 150 copies made to
hand out to people because no one wanted a hotel/motel in their backyard. He
doesn't understand why this proposal was described in such a manner and believes
that the negative response came because of this description, which created the need
for a % vote by Council. He's very disappointed in that. Everyone was very happy
with the meeting with the developer to find out what was actually proposed; i.e., no
signs, no place to house motor homes, etc. Feels that this would be a fine addition
to their neighborhood. Understands the position of staff relative to not wanting to
put more people under the flight path, but Oakbend is already there! Would rather
have this complex than office buildings or whatever. Strongly urged the
Commission to approve this project.
Brooke O'Shea — 119 Oakbend, Coppell, TX — Agrees with neighbors about the
confusion via the mailed notice as to what was planned for this area. She and her
husband are in favor of this proposal. Expressed some concerns about the lighting
in and around this facility that might be close to their homes and the fact that people
could rent on a weekly basis. It was her understanding that it would be annual
leases only, which is important to her. Would like a wider easement and higher wall
in the back of her home. However, overall, she is very much in favor of this
proposal.
There being no one else to speak, Chairman McCaffrey closed the Public Hearing.
Chairman McCaffrey called Travis Crump, Fire. Marshal, to explain the description
regarding the notice to the public. Fire Marshal Crump stated that the Chief Building
Official is charged with classifying buildings whenever a project comes in. Because the
Uniform Building Code has a very narrow definition of what type a building a project calls
for, if a project doesn't meet the definition, the Building Official needs to find the next
closest classification. After discussions with the developer, the question was can it be
rented out weekly? Yes, it can. Was it an apartment? No, it's not an apartment; it is not a
hotel and by the Uniform Building Code, they found the closest definition to be a motel.
Staff felt it would be unfair to the developer to call it an assisted living use because then he
has a whole new set of requirements as far as fire code and building code that would add to
his cost so in trying to be fair to the developer and meet the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code, Fire Marshal Crump stated that this project came in as motel/motor hotel,
which is the legal definition by the Uniform Building Code. He stressed that this definition
was not intended to mislead or deceive the public — it was trying to be fair to the developer
and still meet the requirements of the Code.
11
Some discussion followed relative to the rental of this facility. Mr. Bandemer answered that
a survey was taken of retirement facilities in Dallas and Ft. Worth and found that there are
weekly, monthly and yearly rentals in the area. Mr. Bandemer stated that they would prefer
not have weekly rentals, however, if he finds there is a need for weekly rentals, he wouldn't
want to eliminate this revenue. He stated that weekly would be the least amount of time
they would ever want to rent a facility. This would afford people the opportunity to house
relatives and friends in a facility close to home with all the amenities LaChateau has to
offer. He would like to keep this option available. Asked about a feasibility study, Mr.
Bandemer stated that much research has gone into the feasibility of this project and feels
that there is a definite need for such a facility in this area. Although Coppell is a young
community, he feels that we need to offer something to the aging population. Mr.
Bandemer stressed that this facility would cater to 55+ people, who, in all probability, will
be mostly widowed, women/retirees/single people, who don't require assistance. Mr.
Bandemer did say, however, that if you live there and require and can afford assistance, it's
your choice to bring that assistance to the facility. LaChateau will be able to discriminate
and the facility will be handicap assessable; i.e., if someone is a diabetic and needed a nurse
— the facility will not provide a nurse, but that person could hire a nurse. When asked the
ratio between rates and services provided, Mr. Bandemer stressed that this is not an assisted
living facility and rates will reflect this. When asked whether or not these units were
furnished, Mr. Bandemer stated that residents may wish to supply their own. If units were
being rented on a weekly basis, these units would be furnished. Mr. Bandemer volunteered
that if this facility is a success, his ultimate goal would be to deed restrict this property to
make sure that it never becomes anything but a retirement community. He stated that he
wants this project to be something Coppell can be proud of and he wants to be a part of it.
Addressing the lighting issue, it will be very low level because there's not a lot of need for
high visibility lighting. The masonry issue was raised, pointing out that the reference to
brick veneer in the Staff Report was a misunderstanding — brick and stone will be used.
The airport issue (overflight patterns) was discussed and concern expressed was that this is
a poor location for this type of facility. Planning Director Sieb referred to the
Comprehensive Master Plan, stating that no residential development should be on this
property be it a hotel, apartment, duplex, motel, etc, adding that the plan shows this area
more acceptable as an office/showroom/warehouse area as opposed to residential. He
related that staff believes the project has merit, but it is in the wrong place in Coppell. Mr.
Sieb reminded the Commission of Council's rejection of the Westchase subdivision, located
further east and south of this area due to the noise issue. Regarding protecting Oakbend's
property value, Mr. Sieb pointed out that if a Light Industrial use were to be built, the City
has Ordinances in place to protect surrounding neighborhoods; i.e., additional setbacks, a
solid masonry (brick) screening wall, additional landscaping requirements, etc.
Commissioner Stewart made a motion to deny Case No. PD -177, La Chateau of Coppell,
(Conceptual Plan Review), zoning change request from LI (Light Industrial) to PD -LI
(Planned Development, Light Industrial). Commissioner Nesbit seconded the motion;
motion carried (5-1) with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, McCaffrey, Clark and Stewart
voting in favor of denial. Commissioner Kittrell opposed.
Planning Director Sieb told those present that if this case is appealed to Council in
November, second notices will not be sent to property owners within 200 feet and suggested
12
that letters be mailed into the Planning Department if their opinion has change and they are
now in favor of this project.
A ten-minute break was observed.
After calling the meeting back to order, Chairman McCaffrey stated that the next two cases would
be heard simultaneously.
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD -1598, Asbury Manor,
zoning change request for property zoned PD -159 -SF -7 (Planned Development, Single
Family -7) by amending the planned development conditions as they apply to Lot 1,
Block 3, to permit a reduction in the side fence setback line from 15 feet to the street
right-of-way for property located at 515 Westminster Way, at the request of James
and Karen Farnum.
13. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD -159R2, Asbury Manor,
zoning change request for property zoned PD -159 -SF -7 (Planned Development, Single
Family -7) by amending the planned development conditions as they apply to Lot 5,
Block 3, to permit a reduction in the side fence setback line from 15 feet to the street
right-of-way for property located at 516 Cromwell Court, at the request of Sanjay and
Anju Joshi.
City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced the items to the Commission, showing exhibits
(including photographs provided by the applicants) of both lots, stating that not only is there
a request to move the 15' fence setback line on these corner lots, but also the fact that these
fences will be extended in length to encompass the kitchen window areas, creating a 100'
expanse of fenceline along the street right-of-way. Staff feels that this would dramatically
impact the visual appeal of the street, as well as impact the neighbors who face these homes.
She stated that some traditional design principals are at stake with this request, adding that
homes are designed to have curb appeal. Ms. Moro then said that from staff perspective,
the manner in which side -yard fences are treated when adjacent to a street is an important
element of neighborhood design, especially in this instance since Westminster Way is the
main entrance into this neighborhood. She added that staff believes that the reduction of
this fence setback by 15' and the extension of the length of the fence by 20' would certainly
adversely affect the curbside appeal of both properties and might hurt their property values.
It will also have a dramatic impact on the character of this subdivision. Ms. Moro then
listed other developments that are observing a 15' building/fence line on lots. Of the 56
notices sent to property owners within 200' of these properties, 5 responses were favorable
and 4 were negative, citing the loss of drive -up appeal, possible reduction of property
values, the safety issues with children riding bikes along the sidewalk and the location of a
fence only one foot north of the sidewalk, etc. She went on to state that staff recommends
denial of both requests stating while personal interests may be served by this proposal,
clearly the neighborhood and community interests suffer.
Karen Farnum, 515 Westminster Way, Coppell, TX and Sanjay Joshi, 516 Cromwell Court,
Coppell, TX, were present to represent these items before the Commission and answer any
questions. Mrs. Farnum gave a lengthy explanation of her request, rebutting staff's
13
concerns and the history of fence lines throughout the City. Mrs. Famum reviewed the
packet of information provided to the Commission which, in part, compares their
subdivision to the neighboring subdivision -- Villages of Cottonwood Creek. Because this
development is unique in that homes have a mixture of side, front and rear entries, Mrs.
Famum stated that areas of concern centered around her inability to control issues such as
house crowding in her neighborhood, volume of traffic/visibility and safety concerns, saying
that her fence request does not violate the triangle of visibility; on -coming cars ability to
stop, stating that both her and the Joshi homes meet and exceed the City standard; regarding
street -side appearance, all these homes are the same floor plan with different facades and
feels that the present fence line devalues their homes. She feels that the placement of the
breakfast area windows does not afford privacy, hence the request to extend the fence line to
include this area. With the fence in its present location, Mrs. Famum feels as though she is
living in a communal compound. Because parking is permitted in driveways of front and
side entry homes, wanting to see nice clear open areas along the street is an ideal, but will
not happen in her community because of the number of cars, SUV's, trucks, etc., which
park in various driveways. Ms. Famum feels that her subdivision being subjected to
different standards than the surrounding subdivisions and wants a unified flow from one
area to another, rather than standing out like a "sore thumb." Mrs. Famum questioned an
earlier comment from Ms. Moro about encroaching on public space if her fence is extended
15'. She feels that since she owns this property and pays taxes on it, she should be able to
enclose this property in a usual and customary manner. Mrs. Famum then pointed out
properties within her subdivision that only have to observe an 8' setback, stating that if
other homes with 15' setback lines can go through this same process as she is if they want
to move their fences to the property lines. In summary, Mrs. Famum feels that traffic
visibility is not an issue and is concerned about the words "encroachment into public
space".
Sanjay Joshi, 516 Cromwell Court, Coppell, TX, then touched on three basic points: (1)
Fairness to the other 11 homes in the subdivision if these two requests were granted,
pointing out that some of these 11 homes have two stories and they already enjoy a larger
yard, (2) Aesthetics reasons (fence abutting their patios) and (3) the fire issue in case of an
emergency exist from the home through the patio doors — would a straight wooden fence be
more susceptible to fire vs. a fence with corners? He pointed out that their sight visibility
line also meets the minimum required for safety. Mr. Joshi emphasized that he and Mrs.
Famum found no neighborhood opposition when they canvassed the area about their
request.
Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to
speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward.
There were none.
Chairman McCaffrey then closed the Public Hearing.
Some discussion followed regarding various subdivision rules and regulations. It was felt
that if mistakes were made in the past, this does not mean that these mistakes should be
repeated. When subdivisions are being developed, extensive thought goes into proper
14
visibility lines, setbacks, open spaces, etc. To ignore established open spaces would be a
mistake. It was brought up that if a developer establishes a front yard on corner lots, the
side yard setback would be 15'. When asked what can be done to remedy the problem of
corner lots, because this issue comes up all the time, Planning Director Sieb stated that
corner lots need to be larger than the others. He stated that developers resist increasing the
size of lots, including corner properties, adding that it is "buyer beware" — the buyer sees the
property, sees the plat and talks to the developer. Because the City does not know what
house plans look like, he believes developers should keep fence setback lines in mind when
a house is placed on the lot. Mr. Sieb stated that the developer complied with all guidelines
in this subdivision.
Mrs. Farnum questioned full disclosure of the developer from a selling standpoint, adding
that she was not aware of the fence setback when she signed her contract in October. She
acknowledged that he complied with the "technicality" of the law, but did he meet the
"spirit" of the law? She said this point was brought to their attention in December when
they had a builder pre -construction meeting and they had a time constraint to get into their
house.
Regarding agenda item 12, Commissioner Nesbit made a motion to deny Case No. PD -
159R, Asbury Manor, zoning change request for property zoned PD -159 -SF -7 (Planned
Development, Single Family -7) by amending the planned development conditions as they
apply to Lot 1, Block 3. Commissioner Stewart seconded the motion; motion carried (6-0)
with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark and Stewart voting in
favor of denial. None opposed.
Regarding agenda item 13, Commissioner Nesbit made a motion to deny Case No. PD -
159R2, Asbury Manor, zoning change request for property zoned PD -159 -SF -7 (Planned
Development, Single Family -7) by amending the planned development conditions as they
apply to Lot 5, Block 3. Commissioner Stewart seconded the motion; motion carried (6-0)
with Commissioners Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark and Stewart voting in
favor of denial. None opposed.
14. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD -15786, Valley Ranch Plaza,
zoning change request for property zoned PD -157R5 -C (Planned Development,
Commercial) by amending the planned development conditions to permit the
enclosure of the McDonald's Playplace and to reduce the building size in Phase II
from 10,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet for property located at the southwest
corner of E. Beltline Road and S. MacArthur Boulevard, at the request of McDonald's
Corporation.
City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, showing exhibits of the
proposal, giving the most recent history of the Planned Development, stating MacDonalds
is requesting to enclose their patio and play area and would like to reduce the size of the
Phase H retail building from 10,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet. She added that the
affected changes impact the landscaping and on-site parking and the plans verify that the
applicant is providing adequate landscaping and parking on site with the addition of 9
parking spaces at the MacDonalds site. She stated that the second driveway into this
15
shopping center off Beltline Road is a two-way drive which will be changed to a single
drive. Ms. Moro brought to the Commission's attention a striped island in the parking area
which contains a tree. Because of the cost factor and irrigation problems to remove the
current pavement and add landscaping to this island, staff has placed a waiver request as a
PD condition. Although the applicant is proposing additional signage identifying the
Playplace area and is requesting to modify their existing signage to replace the letters M
with golden arches, staff recommends denial in part because the Architectural Review
Board of the Valley Ranch Association has already denied the signage requests and staff
concurs with this decision. Ms. Moro showed a sample board of the materials to be used on
the 8,000 square foot building in Phase U and stated that staff recommends approval of this
request, subject to the eight conditions outlined in the Staff Report.
Some discussion followed as to the curb cut on Beltline Road which would become an
ingress only to serve the MacDonalds drive-through. Ms. Moro added that the western curb
cut would be a two-way drive but would probably be used more as an egress from the
shopping center. Also the monument sign was discussed.
Mike Lawler, Cornerstone Architectural Services, Inc., 10719 Plano Road, #100, Dallas,
TX 75243, was present to represent these items before the Commission and answer any
questions. He addressed staff conditions, stating that both monument signs in Phases I and
H should be similar in nature; i.e., should list tenant names. With respect to the McDonalds
signage, the applicant understands the desire of the local Architectural Review Board to
deny the Playplace signage, however, identification for any convenience or fast-food
establishment is vital. They feel the use of the arches is very important to MacDonalds
identity. Michael Motta, 9320 Western Trail, Valley Ranch, TX, was also present to speak
about the requested alterations to the existing signage on the MacDonalds building.
Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to
speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward.
There were none.
Chairman McCaffrey then closed the Public Hearing.
Some discussion followed relative to the golden arches and the monument sign.
Commissioner Kittrell made a motion to approve Case No. PD -157R6, Valley Ranch Plaza,
zoning change request for property zoned PD -157R5 -C (Planned Development,
Commercial) by amending the planned development conditions to permit the enclosure of
the McDonald's Playplace and to reduce the building size in Phase H from 10,000 square
feet to 8,000 square feet, subject to the following conditions:
1) Limitation of restaurant usage on the entire 4.6 acres of property (including
ice cream, yogurt, bagel, sandwich, coffee, deli shops, and the like) to a total
of 17,300 square feet of both interior/exterior space, provided parking
requirements are met.
16
2) No additional signage or alteration of existing signage will be allowed on
McDonald's existing structure, as well as on the expansion.
3) Waive the planting island requirement at the north end of the 9 parking spaces
closest to the eastern elevation of the McDonalds building and list it as a
condition of the planned development.
4) The monument sign on Phase H shall be similar to that of Phase I.
5) Approval of the sample of the color board showing all exterior building
materials.
6) Roadway impact fees will be required for the additional McDonald's building
space.
7) Minimum inside radius on fire lanes is 30 feet.
8) No TXU facilities shall be included in the enclosure.
Commissioner McGahey seconded the motion; motion carried (6-0) with Commissioners
Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed.
15. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of the Couuell Commerce Center, Lots 2 &
3, Block 4, Renlat/Minor Plat, to relocate the eastern property line of Lot 2, Block 4,
by approximately 33' to the west and allow the creation of a single building site for a
4 -acre parcel of property located at the southwest corner of S. Coppell Road and
Burns Street, at the request of the Needham, Wright Engineers.
City Planner Isabelle Moro introduced the item to the Commission, showing an exhibit of
the proposal, stating that staff recommends approval of this request, subject to the two
conditions outlined in the Staff Report.
Bob Wright, Needham Wright Engineers, Inc., 10290 Monroe, #101, Dallas, TX 75229,
was present to represent these items before the Commission and answer any questions,
stating that he was in agreement with staff conditions.
Chairman McCaffrey opened the Public Hearing, asking for people present who wanted to
speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward.
There were none.
Chairman McCaffrey then closed the Public Hearing.
No discussion followed.
Commissioner Kittrell made a motion to approve the Coppell Commerce Center, Lots 2 &
3, Block 4, Replat/Minor Plat, subject to the following conditions:
17
1) All easements are shown on the plat.
2) Include the floodplain permit note and signature block on the
minor plat.
Commissioner Nesbit seconded the motion; motion carried (6-0) with Commissioners
Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed.
16. Consider approval of the Carter Addition, Phase H. Amending Plat, to relocate a lot
line between Lots 2 and 5 on property located at the southwest corner of S. Moore
Road and Carter Drive, at the request of Needham, Wright Engineers.
Planning Director Gary Sieb introduced the item to the Commission, showing an exhibit of
the proposal, stating that staff recommends approval of this request, subject to the two
conditions outlined in the Staff Report, plus a third condition to be added to the face of the
Plat.
Bob Wright, Needham Wright Engineers, Inc., 10290 Monroe, #101, Dallas, TX 75229,
was present to represent these items before the Commission and answer any questions,
stating that he was in agreement with staff conditions.
No discussion followed.
Commissioner McGahey made a motion to approve the Carter Addition, Phase H,
Amending Plat to relocate a lot line between Lots 2 and 5, subject to the following
conditions:
1) Clearly delineate the zoning line between A zoning and SF 12 zoning.
2) Verify that Donald Carter owns all five lots. If not, each new property owner
will have to sign the plat.
3) Add the following statement to the plat:
"The purpose of this Amending Plat is to increase the size of Lot 2 and
reduce the size of Lot 5."
Commissioner Kittrell seconded the motion; motion carried (6-0) with Commissioners
Nesbit, McGahey, Kittrell, McCaffrey, Clark and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed.
17. General discussion concerning planning and zoning issues
A. Update on Council planning agenda actions
Planning Director Sieb updated the Commission on the Planning and Zoning
cases brought before Council on October 12th. Mr. Sieb stated that the
Vistas fence request was postponed to Council's October 26th meeting.
18
B. Director's comments
Planning Director Sieb welcomed Sam Clark to the Commission and
commended the Commissioners on their stand on some rather difficult
decisions this evening. He then congratulated Rick McCaffrey and Texx
Stewart on their Chair and Vice Chair elections.
With nothing further to discuss, the meeting adjourned at approximately 10:35 p.m.
K!"
- (,- a- --- I
Rick McCaffrey, Chairman;
Xarb
ljTlae��hnoda,
T:
Sr. Administrative Secretary
19