Loading...
BM 2015-05-21 PZCitof Co el I Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard City `r p p � Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 COPPELL } Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:00 PM Council Chambers Commissioner Edmund Haas (CHAIR) Commissioner Sue Blankenship Commissioner George Williford Commissioner Doug Robinson Present - 7 Pre -Session (Open to the Public) 1. Briefing on the Agenda Commissioner Glenn Portman (VICE CHAIR) Commissioner Ed Darling Commissioner Vijay Sarma 1st Floor Conference Room The Planning Commission was briefed on each posted agenda item in the Workshop Session. No vote was taken on any item discussed. Regular Session (Open to the Public) 2. Call To Order. Chairman Haas called the meeting to order. 3. Consider approval of the minutes for March 19, 2015 and April 16, 2015. A motion was made by Vice Chair Portman to approve the revised minutes for March 19, 2015, seconded by Commissioner Darling; motion carried (7-0). A motion was made by Vice Chair Portman to approve the minutes for April 16, 2015, seconded by Commissioner Robinson; motion carried (7-0). Aye: 7 - Chair Edmund Haas, Vice Chair Glenn Portman, Commissioner Sue Blankenship, Commissioner Ed Darling, Commissioner Doug Robinson, Commissioner Vijay Sarma, and Commissioner George Williford 4. Consider approval of the Westhaven PH IIB, Final Plat, to permit the development of 67 residential lots and two (2) common area lots on 12.58 acres of property located south of S.H. 121, approximately 550 feet west of Magnolia Park, at the request of Standard Pacific of City ofCoppell, Texas Page 1 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes May 21, 2015 Texas, being represented by Mark Harris, Kimley Horn. STAFF REP.: Marcie Diamond Marcie Diamond, Assistant Planning Director introduced this case to the Commission with exhibits. She stated that staff is recommending approval with one condition which she read into the record. Mark Harris, Kimley-Horn & Associates, 5750 Genesis Court, Suite 200, Frisco, Texas, was present to represent this case, to address questions and stated agreement with staff's recommendation. A motion to approve was made by Vice Chairman Portman, seconded by Commissioner Blankenship; motion carried (7-0) with one condition: 1. There may be additional comments generated upon detailed engineering review. Aye: 7 - Chair Edmund Haas, Vice Chair Glenn Portman, Commissioner Sue Blankenship, Commissioner Ed Darling, Commissioner Doug Robinson, Commissioner Vijay Sarma, and Commissioner George Williford 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of the Red Hawk Addition, Lots 3R & 5R, Block B, Replat, being a replat of Lots 3, 4 & 5, Block B, into two lots to allow the construction of one single-family home on 10,713 square feet of property (formally 330-334 Devon Drive) and to replat Lot 5 (326 Devon Drive), to increase to 8,732 square feet, at the request of Creststone Group, Ltd., being represented by L. Lynn Kadleck, Kadleck & Associates. STAFF REP.: Matt Steer Matt Steer, Sr. Planner introduced this case to the Commission with exhibits. He mentioned 12 notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet of this request. Two returned in favor and none returned in opposition. He stated that staff is recommending approval with no conditions. Chairman Haas opened the Public Hearing, asking for people who wanted to speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward. No one spoke. Chairman Haas closed the public hearing and a motion to approve was made by Vice Chairman Portman, seconded by Commissioner Robinson; motion carried (7-0). Aye: 7 - Chair Edmund Haas, Vice Chair Glenn Portman, Commissioner Sue Blankenship, Commissioner Ed Darling, Commissioner Doug Robinson, Commissioner Vijay Sarma, and Commissioner George Williford 6. PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing to receive input on potential amendments to Coppell 2030-A Comprehensive Master Plan to revise and/or eliminate Mixed Use Neighborhood Center and Mixed Use Community Center Future Land Use Designations, and the possible revisions to or repeal of the "MXD-1" and "MXD-2" Zoning District regulations as City of Coppell, Texas Page 2 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes May 21, 2015 text change amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. STAFF REP.: Gary Sieb & Marcie Diamond Gary Sieb, Director of Planning and Marcie Diamond made a presentation to discuss the following items pertaining to mixed use zoning districts with exhibits. The following items were: 1. What this hearing is all about? 2. Why we established mixed use? 3. What mixed use is? 4. Notification Procedure 5. Citizen Input 6. P&Z Commission Considerations Chairman Haas opened the Public Hearing, asking for people who wanted to speak either in favor or opposition or wanted to comment on this request to come forward, the following people spoke: (SEE - EXHIBIT A - FOR VERBATIM COMMENTS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING) Tracy Goyne, 928 Creek Crossing, Coppell, TX Michell Cohen, 808 Blue Jay Lane, Coppell, TX Sehnaz Evlioglu, 519 Beverly Drive, Coppell, TX Debra Dezendorf, 468 Shadowcrest Lane, Coppell, TX Terry Holmes, 225 E. Hwy 121, Ste 120, Coppell, TX Marcie Sandall, 432 Beacon Hill Drive, Coppell, TX Tom Clark, 100 Trailwood Lane, Coppell, TX Daniel Ebner, 301 Meadowcreek Road, Coppell, TX Stephen Curran, 601 Tower Court, Coppell, TX Donny Walker, 308 Forestcrest Lane, Coppell TX Randy Kemberling, 606 Lake Park Drive, Coppell, TX Maureen Vanacore, 606 Lake Park Drive, Coppell, TX Pamela Spadaro, 439 Woodhurst Drive, Coppell, TX David Bell, 913 Parker Drive, Coppell, TX Patrick Brandt, 646 Andover Lane, Coppell, TX Jennifer Holmes, 646 Andover Lane, Coppell, TX Maria Williams, 137 Hollywood Drive, Coppell, TX Roberto Zuniga, 149 Hollywood Drive, Coppell, TX Amit Sangani, 739 Chateaus Drive, Coppell, TX Chip Bunata, 1521 Pine Hurst Drive, Coppell, TX A motion was made by Chairman Haas to keep open and continue the public hearing to a later date for more staff, citizen and Commission dialog, seconded by Commissioner Williford; motion carried (7-0). Aye: 7 - Chair Edmund Haas, Vice Chair Glenn Portman, Commissioner Sue Blankenship, Commissioner Ed Darling, Commissioner Doug Robinson, Commissioner Vijay Sarma, and Commissioner George Williford 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD -213R3 -H, Lost Creek PH II, a zoning change request from PD -213R2 -H (Planned Development -213 Revision 2 -Historic) to PD -213R3 -H (Planned Development -213 Revision 3 -Historic), to amend the Concept Plan and attach a Detail Site Plan to allow three (3) residential/retail units on 0.344 acres of City of Coppell, Texas Page 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes May 21, 2015 property located at the southeast corner of S. Coppell Road and Heath Lane, at the request of Mark Haas, being represented by Jason Rose, JR Rose Architects. STAFF REP.: Gary Sieb Gary Sieb, Planner Director asked the Commission to continue this case to June 18 with the public hearing left open at applicant's request to resolve outstanding issues. A motion to continue the public hearing to the June 18, 2015 meeting was made by Vice Chair Portman, seconded by Commissioner Robinson; motion carried (7-0). Aye: 7 - Chair Edmund Haas, Vice Chair Glenn Portman, Commissioner Sue Blankenship, Commissioner Ed Darling, Commissioner Doug Robinson, Commissioner Vijay Sarma, and Commissioner George Williford 8. Update on Council action for planning agenda items on May 12, 2015: In Work Session, Director of Planning Gary Slob advised the Commission of Council's actions and stated that Council approved all of the P&Z agenda items. A. An Ordinance for Case No. S -10931113-C, Taco Bell, a zoning change from S -1093R2 -C (Special Use Permit -1093 Revision 2 -Commercial) to S -1093R3 -C (Special Use Permit -1093 Revision 3 -Commercial), to allow revised building elevations and attached signage for the existing restaurant with a drive-thru facility located at 115 N. Denton Tap Road. B. The Andrew Brown Community Parks, Site Plan, approval for park improvements, including pavilions, restrooms and concession buildings on property located at 234 E. Parkway Blvd. and 363 N. Denton Tap Road. C. Case No. PD -250R20 -H, Old Town Addition (Main SO, PH III, a zoning change request from PD -250R8 -H (Planned Development -250 Revision 8 -Historic) to PD-25OR20-H (Planned Development -250 Revision 20 -Historic), to amend the Concept Plan and attach a Detail Site Plan to allow the development of 11 single-family lots fronting Hammond Street, one common area lot (access and utility easement) and to revise the development conditions on three retail lots fronting W. Main Street on approximately 2.1 acres of property located at the northeast corner of Hammond Street and Travis Street. D. Case No. S -1260-C, Urban Air, a zoning change request from C (Commercial) to S -1260-C (Special Use Permit -1260 -Commercial), to allow a 28,342 -square -foot indoor commercial amusement center use at 110 W. Sandy Lake Road, Suite 160. E. Case No. PD -258R -SF, Villas of Southwestern, a zoning change request from PD -258 -SF (Planned Development -258 -Single Family) to PD -258R -SF (Planned Development -258 Revised -Single Family), to amend the development regulations City of Coppell, Texas Page 4 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes May 21, 2015 to allow two stucco homes, approval of a Detail Plan for Lot 2 (822 Mango Court) and approval of a Conceptual Plan for an additional stucco home within this subdivision. F. Case No. PD -280-R. Verizon, a zoning change request from R (Retail) to PD -280-R (Planned Development -280 -Retail), to allow an 80 -foot telecommunication tower, antenna and facilities to be located at 1005 E. Sandy Lake Road. G. Case No. PD -263R2 -SF -9, The Preserve at Oak Grove, a zoning change request from PD -263R -SF -9 (Planned Development -263 Revised -Single Family -9) to PD -263R2 -SF -9 (Planned Development -263 Revision 2 -Single Family -9), to attach a revised tree preservation/mitigation plan on 3.56 acres of property zoned for nine (9) single-family lots to be located at the extension of Oak Grove Lane. 9. Director's Comments. There were no comments. Adjournment Wit othing furthern discuss, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:34 p.m. gql4nd-Haa hairy G 1 t4q r O v-+ AA a4A ) Ut U (' a ✓L VVI CwA Vc;v J anita A. Miles, Secretary City of Coppell, Texas Page 5 Public Hearing — Mixed Use Districts Public Comments May 21, 2015 EXHIBIT A "Good evening, well thank you for having me, my name is Tracy Goyne and I am a resident of Coppell. I'm still learning about the mixed use development, that's why I am here tonight, to gain some information. Some of the concerns I have and some of this is because I don't know. The word `unique' what does that mean, what does that look like and who is going to define that in the future? That's a very broad term, that concerns me, I get concerned about our schools and the population, we've been dealing with that a long time this will bring in, and when we talk about the apartments or whatever type of living space that will be above and that's going to bring more people into our schools and I just worry about the student to teacher ratio and what's that going to look like. I also worry about what type of businesses are going to be in those. Are they going to be opened up? Are they going to be drycleaners, nail salons and that type of thing? Which, I'm not saying it's good or bad. What are we missing that's going to come in? Do we have businesses that want to come to Coppell and we don't have room for them? Or, are there going to be businesses with `For Lease' signs that aren't being filled? And so it is just empty space and I don't know that? Do we have businesses that want to be here and we are not able accommodate them? Where are the cars going to go? I live at 928 Creek Crossing and you were looking at mixed residential space there. It's right across from Lakeside Elementary and I don't know how far it is from a home, but it is very close to a school and I see that's still colored here, so I want to know: what that is going to look like, and what that is going to do to that school? So, those are some concerns that I don't have answers to, and from what I have heard tonight there is no real clear definition of what that's going to look like. There is a lot of flexibility there that later on you can say we were for it, but I'm like I don't know what I was voting for because there was no true definition to what I was being told. Thank you." 2. "Hello I am Michelle Cohen, I live at 808 Blue Jay Lane in Coppell, I have sat through a number of the negative meetings early on and I took it to heart. Mr. Haas when you said, "where were you guys when we were talking about this earlier", and my only excuse was we lived overseas for four years and missed part of this. I share some of the concerns raised by the woman before me. I'm part of the Facilities Visioning Committee for CISD so I worry about the over 16 per acre mainly because I know the CISD team says, "oh yeah we can handle it", but part of me says should we, in terms of the size, because I would agree that student/teacher ratio is a big deal, and I think a lot of the people in the community come here for the schools and their home values are tied to the school so that's important. But overall, I think mixed use is a good idea. I just think we need to be very careful about the size per acre. The only other thing I would like to mention for Denton Tap and Sandy Lake, which is we're saying is MXD-2, I would be concerned about traffic there because I can understand Gary when you talked before about in 1996, we had that plan there and you can see open space but I also think in 1996 we didn't see what happens at 4:00 every day when the high school lets out. So, I was wondering as we plan for that, how the Commission addresses problems with the traffic associated with that, so that's all I had to say." 3. "Hello, My name Sehnaz Evlioglu and I am living at 519 Beverly Drive. I'm going to be very quick, actually I have two concerns, one is like the lady said, is the schools. How they are close to the schools, the mixed use area and the other one is the traffic for both Denton Tap and for both MacArthur Blvd and those two roads are highly dense and all areas along that line. It just makes me worry about the schools and the roads, Thank you. 4. "Hi my name is Debra Dezendorf (468 Shadowcrest Lane), I bought my house here in 1987. I was a big part of get Coppell going, I was in the `Beautiful Coppell", put the garden in by the Post Office so, very, very active, I was at the 1996 meeting and you know what we envisioned as citizens at that time it evolved and pretty much became developer driven without any ability to make a change because what it comes down to it, a developer does not want to deal with mixed use because it costs a lot of extra money. The commercial development below, you deal with a different way than you P&Z Commission Public Hearing Comments (Exhibit A), May 21, 2015 Page I do residential. There are so many permits and different things to jump thru the hoops to make it successful that every commercial developer I know just walks away from that when there is an opportunity to develop mixed use. But as a people that are in a community, we do not want our property taxes to be the vehicle that sustains our city. The reason we wanted mixed use in the 90's is because we did not see a lot of development here. I was here before the Minyard's was here. I was here when there was just nothing but country and a bunch of cows in the fields. So, I know where we've been and sort of know where we are going. I still have lots of questions but my urgency in hoping that we can kind of come to some definition of what `unique' means and also the problem with the schools being overcrowded. You know hey, we had a chance to buy that park for $89,000 a long time ago and never would be in that position with so much overcrowding, we just going have to deal with that. As time goes forward, we already have that problem and it does not have anything to do with the mixed use issue. All of that development, that park, and the Lucy Crowe and all that, that's something we just have to look at that as an opportunity, turn it into an opportunity. So if we can get mixed use in a very cohesive way, open space, bicycles, dog friendly, children friendly, and safe, I think we can be very successful with this. I have traveled a lot around the world. People love having their homes above their businesses because it's all customer oriented. You want to be able to satisfy your customer. You know, I have a friend that's in the bakery business; she wants to be able to be right close to her product. So thank you for your time and I hope you consider whatever it takes to have mixed use happen, let's go for it! Chairman Haas asked, Ma'am you mentioned up front too expensive, not so to happen, then you came back around and said, are you in favor of mixed use? Ms. Dezendorf responded, no, what I am saying let's not make this developer driven. I had a whole video to present and of course I borrowed my daughter's computer and she watched videos all night and it is was on zero, so that did not happen and my three minutes is very short, but I come from a background family of developers, you know, construction mostly commercial, bridges things like that but the point I'm saying is I know developers and there are some wonderful places; go down to Southlake, Colleyville, there is place over there by Tarrant County community center. What they've done is they have, you know, it's like pulling teeth to get a developer to accept that type of designation on the property because they are trying to change it to multi -family because it's quick dollars for that developer but the bottom line is let's think about us, let's not... you know, here's an great opportunity we had right there on the corner of Belt Line and MacArthur, two doors down from the McDonald's beautiful Darling Homes but damn it, it's not mixed use, it should have been and right there where those giant electric, what do you call them? .... transformers are there is a barrier there, as you look to the east or west, I'm directionally challenged. But there is a long strip of land that goes all the way to Belt Line. If we created an oasis, berms of vegetation to hide all of that traffic, you could build a fabulous area that is mixed use with more parks, that sort of thing, ok thank you. 5. Terry Holmes, (225 E. Hwy. 121, Suite 120), we office here at Coppell and we have never worked in this kind of development, so I don't have any hidden agenda but I think this could be a really neat concept I would love to see in Coppell. I live here also, but I think it's got to be just done really, really well and I know that's an intangible, but that would probably take a long process for sure for staff to approve it. It would just have to be, I would think slowed down to where it's really done well. Because you see the whole range, some that aren't done well and you see some that are done well. The ones that are done well are wonderful. Paris would be a great example, it's pretty cool and people tend like to go there. And that's some of the neat synergy you could have with this and but I think the fear of that it's going to like bring down values; I just don't see that. We have quite a bit of real estate here and I don't see that and I wouldn't have a fear of that. I think is a great opportunity for some of these neat areas, some of these pockets." 6. I'm Marcie Sandall and I live at 432 Beacon Hill Drive in Riverchase development. Although we are not in the Coppell ISD, I'm still very interested in the Lakewood area around Sandy Lake northeast of Sandy Lake and MacArthur, Lakeside School. My grandchildren went there so I feel connected to it. I'm too concerned about that small property that had a pizza parlor on it, near it P&Z Commission Public Hearing Comments (Exhibit A), May 21, 2015 Page 2 where the CVS Pharmacy and drugstore is located there for people who aren't familiar with that area. I'm concerned about the car traffic and the school being nearby and so I think that mixed use in that spot is a bad idea. I think it's just a poor idea; It's just small acreage. How many acres is that? Chairman Haas answered, Just under one acre. Ms. Sandall responded, yes I think they plan to build, what, nine dwellings there on less than an acre, which is pretty interesting. That's all I have to say, thank you. Commissioner Blankenship asked, you said that it's a bad idea at Sandy Lake and MacArthur, is it just a bad idea there? Or are your comments applicable to the rest of the city? Ms. Sandall responded, no, just there, yeah, the rest of the city I don't have a strong feeling about. Vice Chairman Portman asked, are you happy with the CVS being there? Ms. Sandall responded, yes I am, I use it. Vice Chairman Portman asked, Is the Chase Bank ok there? Is that a good use? Ms. Sandall responded, yes what is there is ok. Vice Chairman Portman asked, Do you find the Kroger's across the street useful? Ms. Sandall responded, oh sure, yeah, I have trouble finding nearby parking and everybody uses it. 7. Tom Clark, 100 Trailwood Lane, Coppell, I'll be clear right off the bat, I am in favor of repealing the mixed use all the way around. The last time I was here for one of these meetings, when we got to the verbalization of the concerns and the problem that we had; if that is what you heard, then I don't think you were listening to what the people were saying out here in the audience. What we were told was because there was a Comprehensive Master Plan that had mixed use in it, it was going to happen all we could to do was to figure out what kind of lipstick we're going to put on the pig, that's what I heard sitting out here. I think that is why we are here, why this came up now because we're looking to see if we could change the Master Plan to eliminate mixed use or at least curtail it because what I've heard here tonight is, generally I'm in favor of mixed use; I live here but as long as it is going over there, I'm in favor it, that's what I have heard tonight. If it is going by my house, I don't want it. I live right in the middle of Coppell, it's not going in by me but I have to drive through it and by it every day. It increases traffic no matter which one of the entrances you put it in. I moved from Flower Mound because they did the same out there. They put a bunch of people and cars right where I need to get in and out of Flower Mound so I moved to Coppell. It's a residential place; people come here to live. People come here, they buy. People come here and they stay. I have been here for 14 years. I live here; I pay property taxes here. The people that sign a six-month lease in an apartment are here for six months. They're not invested the way I am invested. They come here for a year so that they can come to our school. They're not invested in the high school the way I am invested in the high school. So I am in favor of nixing the mixed use all the way around not because it benefits me where I live but because I think it'll benefit all of Coppell. It's a small confined area and I don't think we have the space. I think we'll be better off to use our space to put in the industrial we've got and to put in the homes for people that are going to stay here and be the fabric of our community. 8. Daniel Ebner, 301 Meadowcreek Road, which constitutes my third house in Coppell having lived here since 2000. I'm now closer to Gary so he can keep a close eye on me. Thank you guys for the opportunity to talk tonight; thank you for the openness. I know it's been a lot of work, particularly for you guys, so I appreciate the opportunity to talk in a lucid, candid format. Full disclosure, I am an apartment guy and I've spoken against density in this city and which makes me about the most hated person in the city because most of the people I hear don't like me because I'm an apartment guy and most apartment guys don't like me because I'm speaking against density. That said, The P&Z Commission Public Hearing Comments (Exhibit A), May 21, 2015 Page 3 company I work for owns about 25,000 units nationwide and we've owned some pretty cool mixed developments one of which is in West Village uptown Dallas; I think you guys are all probably pretty familiar with that. I'm going to use a technical term and I hope I don't lose you guys and but it is this, apartment guys really, really suck at running retail and retail guys really, really suck at running apartments and so what happens is, the reason West Village was so successful, it was separately owned. We own the apartments; that's our area of expertise. Retail guys woke up every day thinking about the best tenant mix for the retail. I also own a building in downtown Dallas that has about 20,000 feet of retail. Guess what? It is totally empty. The only people showing up to rent it are little crappy retailers, that frankly you would not want in Coppell. If you are curious how I get my tenants, I've got Weitzman Group representing me which is a very professional organized, organization that has a very significant reach to significant retailers. So all that said, what we're really talking about here and where people get upset is when we say density. You say mixed use, they hear density. Nobody wants the density. If we were talking, look at the crowd here tonight, kind of limited. If you were to have on the docket 300 units this place would be filled to the rafters, and I think we all know that right? So I think if we still got this language outstanding, Mr. Phillips said it very, very well, we're sending a message that we are in favor of density or at least allowing it and until we remove any density over eight units to the acre, we're sending the wrong message and we should repeal it, thank you. Chairman Haas asked, Obviously you want to repeal the MXD districts all together, but if there was a cap on any residential piece would you have a recommendation on that? Mr. Ebner responded, me, personally, when I run the math, I'd like a minimum 50 -foot lot, I would prefer larger lots, 60 feet which would be 6000 square feet, which by my math would be seven units to the acre, that would be the max I would prefer. So no, I would not like apartments over retail. 9. Stephen Curran, 601 Tower Court. I've been a resident of Coppell for many years. We moved here in 1992. I would like to echo the comments from the previous speaker that when I hear mixed use, I hear density and so I'm really here to discuss the broader topic of density where mixed use is a subset thereof, and that is that. There are fewer, fewer spots left in the city for development. Those are becoming more and more precious and therefore the economic returns for the people that want to invest in those whether it be apartments, whether it be mixed use is such to maximize density. So I think we have to balance the needs of the community with the needs of the development and what their interests are and I think that again, to echo the previous speaker, that I would be in favor wherever possible trying to enhance livability, to limit density. When I do think about the facility that is planned next to the Dairy Queen; I was here for that meeting, there were concerns about, look at that particular intersection Belt Line and Denton Tap, very, very dense. Do we really want to be a city that encourages enhanced density on top of what we already have to deal with? It's also over by a school so forth and so on. I will be very brief and wrap it up by saying my major concern is density and my hope is for continued livability. I'm a longtime Coppell resident, love the city and hope we can maintain the quality of life. Thank you. Chairman Haas asked, you mentioned enhanced livability, what do you mean by enhanced livability? Mr. Curran responded, what I mean is exactly what another one of the people said before is, what draws people to Coppell? Is that it is a residential community and that as time has gone on, the density within our city has increased and the traffic due the density in all the surrounding neighborhood communities has put enhanced pressure on this community for basic traffic movement etc. and etc. So, when I think of livability, I think in terms of, and again, a word in one of the previous meetings that I came to that a gentleman used, I remember because it was so descriptive, was let us not be pinpricked to death with those remaining last areas for development. Meaning, that as those get filled out to the extent that we can have positive uses for those and keep in mind that density is a real issue for many residents, then that is what we should strive for. 10. Donny Walker, I live at 308 Forestcrest Lane in Northlake Woodlands in Coppell. I have been here since before any of you probably; 1978, December. There a few people here before I was, a few P&Z Commission Public Hearing Comments (Exhibit A), May 21, 2015 Page 4 1000. I have watched this debate go on and on and I know there is a lot of vested interest here because you've put a lot of work into it. I know it is hard, I was a designer and an engineer for years and years, I know it's hard to get rid of a plan that I've worked on and say oops set this aside, we're not going to do this anymore. So I know you guys are emotionally attached to it. But very little to nothing's been said about the traffic in and out of the City of Coppell and thru Coppell. So we use Denton Tap, MacArthur, Sandy Lake and Parkway perhaps to really get about town. And all of these areas proposed are on these thru-ways. Now it's been said that Freeport will take a lot of the traffic off of Denton Tap because all of the people coming through town will divert over there. But we've known through watching every road in the DFW area, you build it, it's empty, you say it's great, then five years later it is packed. Remember when Denton Tap was two lanes? We thought this six - lane road was going to be great, but it's full now. It used to be two, you build Freeport, Denton Tap will fill up, Denton Tap -Belt Line. Now the parking in this plan suggest that first of all, that the buildings are going to reduce the setbacks, are going to be real close to the street. We're looking at some on Denton Tap that way and other places too. Real close to the street meaning the sidewalks there, the traffic is really close to it. I was told by Councilman Wes Mays that intercity agreements prohibit on -street parking as shown in some of the diagrams up here. You remember some of the pictures where they show parking along the side of the street? Then there are examples of how they're being a little offset where they will build a little island; you take an existing street and build another lane over there essentially for parking with little islands dividing parking spaces. So I'm concerned about traffic and I think it hasn't been addressed. I really wish that you would reconsider. I am very much against the plan as it is. Putting it along Freeport Pkwy would be a great place for great mixed use. Build like Southlake along Freeport, change it to industrial, thank you. Chairman Haas asked a question; so according to our zoning, most of the areas that are shaded pink and dark purple they are currently zoned commercial, so commercial could happen? So you're still advocating reduce commercial for less traffic? Mr. Walker responded, I'm suggesting we don't want people parking on the street that we are going through or just right off the street. If they build a parking lot off the street with commercial, they'll have single lane entrance probably. But as shown in the plan there's this parallel parking or diagonal parking going in and it looks real pretty but .... has any of you gone to these nice thrift towns? When you get over there, you can't get through them. Southlake has done great job in that they don't have this if you drive by the mixed use is over there actually secluded away. Commissioner Robinson commented that as a designer engineer, you're probably familiar with zoning and building codes and I'm all about guidance documents and we didn't have guidance for what it would be if there was a mixed use and as was presented, we could have a planned development that actually became a mixed use. If we repeal this, we won't have any guidance documents for what that will look like. So as a designer, as an engineer, do you feel that guidance documents should remain in some fashion? Or, do you want to see them repealed? Mr. Walker responded, I'd like to see it either repealed or changed such that it strictly forbids any kind of traffic/parking such that our freeways will be clogged up. 11. Hello I'm Randy Kemberling and I live at 606 Lake Park Drive in the Waterford area. Actually we both came here to get a little bit more information about what you guys are planning to do with mixed use development. I've lived all over the United States mostly the western parts of United States and have seen mixed use development done well and some not done so well. So I guess the theory of mixed use I do not have a problem with it what so ever. I guess the idea of where it's placed is probably more important and then how it's implemented. Also the size of the structures, how many units, the density those are all critical and then it's a case by case basis I guess too. If it is not appropriately placed in areas where it would fit; in other words, too close to some neighborhoods and too close to schools could be a problem. Traffic is always going to be an issue and I think that's an issue whether you're a residential city or not. I don't know if you could blame it on mixed use development or anything, you're just always going to have traffic. You are always going to have to address it. Whether you're going to blame it on mixed use or just development in general, even if P&Z Commission Public Hearing Comments (Exhibit A), May 21, 2015 Page 5 it's commercial development, you always going to have to deal with it. Like the gentleman had mentioned once you build a new road, it's going to get filled up. It's just that simple. Thanks for all the work you do and we appreciate it. 12. I'm Maureen Vanacore and I'm also at 606 Lake Park Drive and he's my husband Randy. I grew up in New York and I grew up in a very densely populated area. My friends would come in from other areas and say how do you know when you leave one town and get into another? Because you really can't tell unless you see that sign in the middle of the road. I grew up on Long Island, lived in Manhattan, love city life. And when I moved here everybody was surprised cause I moved to Coppell. At the time it was 1993, I was living in North Dallas. I had a friend who lived in Irving and I'd bring my bike there and ride up MacArthur to get up to Coppell to do house hunting because when you exercised you did everything at once. Loved it, great. I would not do that road trip today. It is not possible anymore because it's so much development that has occurred. This place does not look the same. I wished I had taken snapshots along the way as to how much this town has changed. So for me, I kinda reiterated what others have said, I'm concerned about the traffic; I'm concerned about the schools. I like that idea of downtown, I miss that area of a downtown concept. I like Old Town and what they are doing there that seems to be going in that direction. I do get concerned when I see a spot like the woman brought up at Sandy Lake and MacArthur. If you take that where that restaurant was and put up a three-story building, that doesn't make sense to me. I mean if you put in another restaurant there, you put in a couple of stores there, that as long as they are appropriate next to a middle school, I think that seems OK. But if you put a three-story building with apartments and it's already a lot of traffic there to begin with, then it seems it doesn't make any sense. Then you look at in relation to the neighbors around. In Waterford Subdivision, we have one street that is not allowed to put in two-story houses. They were told they were restricted to one-story because the neighbors next to it were all one-story and these people didn't want these big houses looming in on them. So they had that restriction and it is a similar type concept. If also you put a three-story building next to a residential area, what are those people going to feel like? What's it going to be for them? I'm not against per say, it's more about strategic placement. Where does it make sense not to cause traffic problems? And it seems like it's in all sorts of different areas rather than saying we are going to develop this one big area and make this big downtown area with the mixed use. To me that would make more sense. To me, it's like we have this little piece of land, let's try it here. Maybe I'm wrong. It might be more strategic than that. But just an outsider getting in the first view, that's what it seems like, anyway, thank you. 13. Pamela Spadaro, 439 Woodhurst Drive, I've been a resident of Coppell for 15 years. I manage real estate for Bank of America and actually have done mixed use development. I hear tonight mixed use, I hear multi -family, you know, as a mixed use. Completed a mixed use development in University Park. 75,000 square feet of office above 20,000 square feet of retail, very attractive, residents love it. They love walking off of Wentwood and Villanova over to the Plaza at Preston Center to eat, dine and take in personal services there. The Coppell 2030 Comprehensive Master Plan was put in place to provide future development within the city. Based on recent statistics, here in Dallas/Fort Worth the population is set to explode with one to two million more in population by 2020. In 2014 alone, I'm sure you heard that our population has ranked 4h in the nation with a growth of 2%. Being located centrally in the core we need both MXD-1 and MXD-2. We need to plan for future growth in our city. We have a future of diminished resources and land but we have opportunities in redevelopment within the industrial areas, within area of retail. Just like I did, I tore down a retail building and put up a mixed use project. Those opportunities exist and it's not about the remaining land we have here today. It's necessary to have all of these options available for existing and future residents of Coppell. Mixed use provides a sense of place for residents who love Coppell but don't want the dated suburban single-family home. Mixed use encourages and promotes a village style with retail, restaurants, offices and multi -family housing as well as spaces for civic uses like you mentioned. It provides more housing opportunities, more choices and may increase the affordable opportunities for people to join our community. Mixed use can and will enhance an area's unique identity and can be a gateway to our city's strengths. Contrary to some of the misinformed people here and in my personal experience, mixed use does not increase traffic. It decreases auto dependency because you have people going to the same services within that location. P&Z Commission Public Hearing Comments (Exhibit A), May 21, 2015 Page 6 They're not commuting from one population to another. You look at where our traffic is today, it is in front of our high school, that is not a mixed use location. If you looked at any one of our multi- family communities in Coppell and we have a only a handful, there is not a traffic problem there. The traffic problem is in front of the high school; the traffic problem is on the gateway from 635 and it's people going to Lewisville; it's on Sandy Lake, people cutting through from Grapevine to Carrollton. It wasn't caused by any mixed use development here. Contrary to that, it protects our precious resources, it enhances our vitality and embodies smart growth. Lastly and more importantly, it increases the revenues of the city. Neighborhood mixed use accommodates businesses and therefore; growth and employment within the city. Residents like myself demand areas where you can come together for those shopping which I've talked about. According to the studies by the North Central Texas Council of Governments, neighborhood mixed use, which is what we're talking about here in Coppell, generates about 20 to 30 jobs per acre and so you're keeping jobs here in Coppell. North Texas cities like Southlake, like I've heard tonight, Rockwall, Desoto and Mansfield all have successful mixed use neighborhood projects. If we review the North Texas Council of Government maps, almost all the cities surrounding us including Lewisville, Grapevine, Carrollton, Farmers Branch have multiple metropolitan community mixed use projects and we should too. We need to understand our options for better growth and utilize the mixed use zoning for future projects within the city and I support it, thank you. 14. David Bell, 913 Parker Drive, I'm definitely in favor of modifying the future land use map, not just repealing the two designations but modifying the map to remove the mixed use designations. For one, we don't have a lot of contiguous land available in any of those areas. They're not owned by one individual or one company; they're owned by several different ones so it's hard to perceive putting together a synergistic development in any of those areas at any time soon. Currently we have that spot at Denton Tap and Sandy Lake where that gas station used to be within one of these areas. Should we let someone go and develop one of these mixed use things on that one little small parcel expecting that someday the McDonald's will close down so that they can expand into there? Or should it really be something that's really done as master plan, where you have development that's cohesive and all the landowners are in agreement? Or, is the city's intention to take over the land and redevelop it the way they see fit for this? All of these parcels are pretty much occupied by other businesses, in some cases, by housing developments and a lot of cases along Denton Tap, a lot of them are fairly recent that have gone in that are not in the mixed use ideology. So we've kind of progressed away with the current developments; away from that anyway. So I'm thinking we just should ought to just take it off so that we don't get ourselves caught with a developer coming in and saying that on this one little piece of one acre that we are going to go and build a two or three-story building, 10 or 15 feet from the sidewalk and have that just stick out there where nothing else is really developing around there like that. You got areas that have been brought up like Southlake, or the Legacy in Plano, those areas were over 100 -acre developments that were master plan areas and that type of area can support that. In Coppell, unfortunately, we got the one over at The Avenue that was mentioned and that one still there hasn't been any dirt moved on it and I'm not exactly sure where they are in the process. I'm not sure they got any units sold. They've got it advertised for $225 a square foot along with $100 a month HOA dues that would be on that property. So those aren't cheap alternative places to live for people anyway. And, it's not like they have got a good place, like we're going to go walk to Dairy Queen, to have dinner or go out and where we're going to go have fun at night. So it's not like we are in an uptown area or an area that's got a lot of other places that would provide that synergy right now anyway. So that's why in wrapping up that I think we really ought to take a look at the Comprehensive Plan and just redo that and look at what's already developed and go forward with what we realistically see as what could happen in Coppell. Chairman Haas asked, you mentioned size as a key component to synergistic development, in your opinion in is there any specific size that would make things work? You mentioned Southlake at 100 plus acres, is there any from your experience in real estate a minimum size that would work? Mr. Bell responded, that's one of those things that is hard to define. I know that doing it piecemeal it's going to be difficult. I don't know for sure how it's gone over at The Avenue as I'm trying to sell those units. They have 29 units that they are going to have there. They've been over with us for P&Z Commission Public Hearing Comments (Exhibit A), May 21, 2015 Page 7 over five months and I don't know if they've gotten any activity, if they have, they've been awful slow about getting it going on moving the dirt. All I see is some pretty high weeds over there right now. I do know they are moving dirt over in the Kimbel Kourt area for the townhomes they're going to go in there. So maybe they are having a little bit better luck with those types of units trying to do it. The problem I see is there is a lot of demand for houses in Coppell. We just don't have enough homes especially under $300,000 that are available for people to go and buy right now. But I don't have anybody that wants to buy an 1100 -square -foot condo unit right now. So there is a demand in one area but there isn't a heavy of a demand in the other area right now and you've have to have something much larger to really be able to develop that to where there are restaurants they can go to, they've got clubs they can go to, maybe comedy stores or theaters or whatever that would be good within walking distance and all of that would take a fair amount of space to really develop and really make it work. Chairman Haas asked, You're opposed to mixed use in Coppell, but are you opposed to mixed use in general? Mr. Bell responded, no, not in general, I think they're places where it make sense other than Coppell. If Coppell had gone 20 or 30 years ago came up with a master plan to go and do it, it might have made sense. But to try to do it piecemeal is where the problem comes in and where it's just kind of done haphazardly. Commissioner Robinson asked, just so I can understand, you would like to see all the mixed use repealed, taken out all together? Mr. Bell responded, yes, taken off the Master Plan and leaving areas that zoned commercial for mixed use. Commissioner Robinson asked, in doing that and understanding this that someone can still do a mixed use development on a commercial lot, would you be for keeping regulations if they want to build, what that would look like? They can do a planned development. Mr. Bell responded, the key thing is and why I wanted to focus on the future land use, is to not encourage the development request that come in asking for that. I guess and I don't know how the planned development works, and I guess anyone can come in and ask for anything under the moon and try to work it out and if it works out then they can proceed whatever I don't know. But in general, I would not try to encourage that type of development because I'm afraid that by encouraging it, then having a small place, you would get yourselves stuck to where if they meet all the things that are listed out, then you're almost stuck where you have to approve it even though it may not make sense with everything that's around it. Otherwise, you could have some potential legal issues in trying to deny it because you've said you've encouraged it and then they've put in all this work, time and money and then you turnaround and say no we just don't want it there. So I think that's the problem trying to find out what we really want to encourage and really want to promote for any areas, and there is not very many areas that are open but any areas you want to redevelop. Even in these areas that are defined, there's a lot of successful businesses already within those areas so there's really isn't anything that I can foresee where there would be a large number of areas that are going to just kind of close up and say ok let's tear it all down and build something new. So I think that's really what the problem is. Commissioner Sarma asked, in your opinion, you would be saying that the market segment for real estate in Coppell; they're not the kind of people who would be looking at mixed use type units and the segment that is looking at mixed use units is not looking at Coppell, is that what you are saying? Mr. Bell responded, for the most part yes, people that I've dealt with that are looking for that kind of thing. They're looking in the uptown area in Dallas or the West Village area in Dallas because there are a lot more things to draw them in there. What we've seen so far with The Avenue like I said is something that's very high priced at $250 a square foot is higher than most of our homes and it's P&Z Commission Public Hearing Comments (Exhibit A), May 21, 2015 Page 8 awful hard to attract people in at that high of a price. With construction costs the way they are now days and everything, it's going to be hard for a developer to come in and try to sell those for less. I don't know where that current developer is within the process. I just kind of wonder since it's been so long now if they're having second thoughts or not because of what they have experienced in the market. 15. Patrick Brandt, 646 Andover Lane, it's been an interesting civic day, I started my morning with jury duty service. So I have gone from that to this. I think it's interesting when this resolution came through to ask you to have these hearings. Council went around in work sessions to talked a fair amount about this. And there is still an amount of sensitivity towards how these ordinances are going to be used and interpreted and it's the issue that David was just bringing out which is we're putting a welcome carpet out there for something that doesn't really work. I think some of that as I look at these things here to go back to some of the bullet points Gary and Marcie gave us some of it comes down to whether you are talking about the neighborhood centers or the community centers and what you would get with those and how they impact particular neighborhoods. And so I go back to one of the issues in the 2030 plan, when you go in there and in the discussions of these pieces is, have neighborhood meetings about it and write actually which of those light purple ones actually fit into that and should that land use map be changed around some of those. I can see doing some of the bigger mixed use ones but again, we got to be sensitive to what these densities are going to be. That's the big piece that comes in here. I think when you get to the lower neighborhood mixed use ones, I think the real concern people have is, is that density number too high. Is the density number that's going to work in one neighborhood the same as what's going to work in another? I can tell you the neighborhood over around Sandy Lake and MacArthur wants a real low density number if anything was to come in there to do that. Other neighborhoods will be able to satisfy and have a higher density number. That comes with having the neighborhood type meetings. Following on this, there haven't been any projects brought forward on this, right? We put this ordinance out there just about a year ago. No one is clamoring at our doors to do this. And even if we get rid of the ordinance, there's still the option to do it with a PD and then to place these same sort of type conditions on it, right? We have options out there on this and so I think revisiting what those designations are on this piece is one of the serious things that needed to be considered with this. That said as I look at what's existing in many of those places now, right? So now I think with Belt Line and MacArthur there is empty retail down there. If the retail's not full, who's going to want to come and put apartments above an area that you can't sustain retail in right now? So that would be an active area to consider MXD-2 and I don't see why we would carry MXD-2 on the books if the existing situation works. Backing up Daniel Ebner's comments from earlier, apartment guys are bad at retail and retail guys are bad at apartments. So whoever owns that land right now if they were going to redo it; if they have been bad at retail; you expect them to suddenly to get good at apartments? So looking at that and thinking about the recent demands in cases you've had here at P&Z and going back through, Westhaven, Easthaven, the Hammond Street projects, what am I seeing? Lots of single family. So why would we push for a set zoning designations from away from what the demand is that we know has to pay taxes regardless of whether it's filled or not, thank you. Vice Chairman Portman asked, do you think that because the existing MXD-1 & 2 regulations that exist that developers have been discouraged from developing in Coppell because standards are so stringent? Mr. Brandt responded, of all things, there was an attorney in the jury pool I was in today. So talk about being unlikely to make it into the jury; you know, you've queried an attorney and he happens to be an municipal attorney in another community. And we're talking about things like this and I mentioned I was going to do this tonight, not going to name him, his thought was by reputation that we are tough to deal with. So I don't know if MXD makes us easier to deal with or makes us harder to deal with. Are we easier to deal with in terms if someone wanted to come in and really redo all of Belt Line and MacArthur and build a nice big plaza down there; are we to let them do it under the PD like we did for Old Town? And then to be able to build those restrictions in that way? Or are we to have MXD-1 and MXD-2? There's a lot of expertise up here and there's a lot of expertise out here in the audience. I think that's a dialog worth having. But as it is now, for some of these areas P&Z Commission Public Hearing Comments (Exhibit A), May 21, 2015 Page 9 on this map I'm seeing in front of me; I don't think some of these people in those neighborhoods want those densities. There are other areas I think they may. And then the question is would we be best served legally, tax wise, land use wise, going forward with them as PD's which I think we're probably are. Look what happened to these projects that have bordered on mix use. The neighbors have all come in an asked for lower densities. We can do that in the PD process. So why create this other thing that we're still ambling around about? You all seem to manage the PD process really well over the last few years with the projects we've got. I think you are just opening yourselves up to more and more headaches moving forward if we keep the MXD-1 and MXD-2. 16. Jennifer Holmes, 646 Andover Lane, You know there was a lot of input last year in response to concrete developments. Kimbel Village, as you can remember, had a record number of people in opposition, second to only Manara Academy and we don't want that again. The Avenue people got aware of it later, and I don't think that is what you want to advertise as setting the standards as mixed use. When we saw it with the Dairy Queen, it's not what you want to have as mixed use. If you do not revise the future Land Use map, then I would say take off all the purple. Honestly, I don't think we should have it anywhere with two exceptions. The part by 635, fine that's a major highway. That makes sense to have a big mixed-use development. Maybe on that Cotton Belt if that ever gets developed which DART is not a popular thing in Coppell either. But really, that would make sense other than that it doesn't make sense. We had two online petitions, 856 people signed against Kimbel Village. We had in two weeks, almost 500 people signed a petition that was generally against mixed use. The definition was precise. In response to your question in Work Session Commissioner Darling, it was defined as eight or more units per acre in three levels or higher. It was not talking about something that proponents need to say. I love the Shops at Legacy, but that's not what we have here. That's not possible, we don't have that type of space here. And when people talk about it, it's like yeah that would be great but that's not the reality we live in. And what we are living in is the reality of The Avenue, do we want more of that and I think the answer is no. Just to remind you we've had a seat change. The last contested council election was pretty decisive and the big issue was mixed use. That was the first time we had a city council member defeated since 1998 who was contested and what the issue was high density, mixed use residential development. The people do not want it. When we talk about traffic, let me give you an example, I leave my house on Andover and it takes me 15 minutes to go a mile and a half if I'm going down MacArthur and down Sandy Lake. It take me 15 minutes to get to Riverchase. People came to Coppell for a third parks, a third industrial and a third housing. We have had lots of more residents move in. Our footprint of parks has not increased. I would say the work you're doing on trails or the city's doing on trails making the city more walkable, is great, continue that, but the third has shrunk and we have a lot more, lot more population. So to sum up, I would say if you are going to keep any mixed use, you absolutely as David Bell said, you need to revise this map get it off the in -fill development and off the interior corners. If you're going to keep it, keep it by 635, keep it by that railroad or maybe Belt Line. But other than that, get rid of it. If you are going to keep it where it is now in the purple, density needs to be lower, lot sizes need to be bigger and you have to have the neighborhood meetings. 17. I'm Marla Williams, I live at 137 Hollywood Drive, I want to touch briefly on the schools. One thing you may not have seen from Superintendent Walthrup, is we are about to hit a cap on funding. Where it means for every additional student we get, we will actually receive less money going forward. The current statement out of the district is that we can get a bond issue to build another school; however, we cannot afford to pay teachers and turn the lights on in those schools because we do not have enough operations and maintenance budget to do that. So, when we talk about overcrowding, that's one thing but the fact we can't turn the lights on in another building in our district, that's a significant problem. That's not your problem except for where it comes into adding in high density residential that brings in more students. The district is going to grow by 3000 students in the next five years. That is the current demographic study that was released two weeks ago. 3000 more students and we can't open another building of any level. So just something to consider there. Touching on what Jennifer said, the neighborhood meetings, a year ago I thought we were going to get some neighborhood meetings. In April, there was a work session with the Council. I know a RFP went out. That's not feasible apparently but we don't need a RFP to hold neighborhood meetings. If mixed use is something that the city feels we want, then that needs to be done and it P&Z Commission Public Hearing Comments (Exhibit A), May 21, 2015 Page 10 needs to be done in a very timely manner before a request does come forward. You know I think our best option for mixed use was MacArthur and Belt Line and what did we do? We added some more residential to the edges on the southwest corner; so you know, that means you can't do the MXD-2 on that corner. There's MXD-2 on the northwest corner; you know you can't do that there because there is residential there as well. You know, I think we have kind of cut off our noses despite our face in some respects because we keeping approving things that diminish the ability to even do mixed use especially the high density. You know if you're going to keep the Land Use map as it is, I think that would be a mistake. I think it is inviting things that we don't necessarily want. And I just took note, when they showed the ... I forgot about it actually, till I saw above the fold in the Coppell Citizen's Advocate last week, the Council overruled Planning & Zoning for some homes to be developed in Old Town. I believe because and I think that the major concern was it didn't match the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Well I have to question then, ok if we're overruling what's in the 2030 Plan, maybe the 2030 Plan doesn't reflect today's reality of what Coppell wants and if it doesn't reflect it for parts of Old Town, then maybe it doesn't reflect it here either. That was how it was reported. First thing, I would like to see the ordinances repealed; however, I'd like to keep those documents I think they're very useful guidance that staff could give to a developer who wants to do something creative or unique. It's not that they are bad, I just think they're not necessarily something we want to encourage on a scale in those small neighborhood areas. I also think the Land Use map needs to be updated. If we could get 20, 30 acres owned by one person to do something great on an edge away from the residential areas, I think that would be awesome, but I don't see that ever happening certainly not within the next 14 years of 2030. That's all I have, thank you. Commissioner Williford asked, Would you be in favor of something smaller than 20 to 30 acres? Have you thought of what a minimum size might be appropriate? Ms. Williams responded, honestly, it would depend on where it is; however, I think the MXD-1 on land use three acres or greater would be more appropriate than the MXD-2 on three acres. The way Coppell is setup, there's nowhere to park and get to those places unless it's in my neighborhood unless it's right there. So if we're going to have something that's really attractive that has two or three restaurants and other places you can go hangout and do stuff whether it be for kids or adults, if I can't get there and I can't park and I can't do that, I'm not riding my bike there and trying to ride home at midnight after being somewhere, I'm sorry that's just not me. So I think you would have to have significant amount of space and I just don't see where in Coppell, interior Coppell that's going to happen. Did that answer your question? Commissioner Williford replied, yeah thank you. Chairman Haas asked Marcie where did you say the 20 -acre site was in Coppell, we have one site that's about 20 acres, where is that site? Or Gary I'm sorry. Mr. Sieb replied, I think that actually was me that mentioned that, a vacant piece of property that's zoned LI which has had some interest from the part of developers who may say mixed use and do they know what they're saying or not but that property is at the corner of Southwestern, Denton Tap Belt Line, the southwest corner across from Pinkerton Elementary, correct. It's the biggest one that we have that's vacant that developers have shown some initial interest in. Commissioner Williford asked Mr. Sieb, has anyone produced this map just showing the vacant properties? So the proposed MXD-1 & 2 but take out wiping out all of Town Center, take out wiping out Kroger's and just the vacant properties to see what would be available. Mr. Sieb replied, yes we do have vacant parcel maps in the Planning Department. We have not shown a current vacant parcel map in the Comprehensive Master Plan. 18. My name Roberto Zuniga, I live at 149 Hollywood Drive, I'm an urban planner. It's amazing how the wisdom of the citizens have spoken. All of my arguments except two have been mentioned, so I won't repeat myself. There's three things that have been said today and one was actually the most P&Z Commission Public Hearing Comments (Exhibit A), May 21, 2015 Page 11 relevant one was said by Gary. Edmund Haas asked him, What have those developers asked or shown interest in and he answered that the developers have interest in areas or sites that are not currently zoned for mixed use development. The nature of development is making money at all costs and finding opportunities to develop. One of the most stringent city codes is in New York and there is Trump Tower and Trump Tower got build out five inches away from the UN building. There it is. If a developer would want to see that here, believe me, he would. If there is a market it would. Now, one of the corners there is very close to my dear heart because I drive there all mornings is the commercial failed retail development which is actually a school, a charter school. The charter school has two police officers paid by our money, to manage the traffic and protect the kids because the planning ordinance for schools and the very stringent safety codes are not applied there and those people are not from here; none of them are here, they don't live here. We have a great independent school district. I have two graduates and two kids there. That attacks the single most important economic engine of Coppell directly. It is there and it is functional. This is not about zoning or land specification as well put by the citizens before me. If you do a planned development and you publish it, you will have the same people here like we were here against Kimbel Kourt. Whether it is MXD- 1 or MXD-2, it's the same. We will oppose whatever it is because we don't have the critical mass in land to develop a successful Legacy because many things ... that we don't have: DART, we don't have TOD, we don't have connectivity. The only thing that we have for being resilient is our quality of life. I love mixed use development. Most likely I will end up retired in a mixed use development community. I will sell my house in Coppell to a family like mine that came here looking for the quality of life to raise a family. I will make a significant amount of money from when I bought my house and I will retire to a mixed use community most likely. So I love mixed use. I just think that Coppell had those choices before, like the lady that has lived here for a long time, and all of us, common sense says that if there was a market for mixed use development, the kind that the pictures were shown to explain to us and not the, excuse me, but the `cheesy' developments that we have been opposing because there is no walkability. Well, let's first have our trails. Let's first have mass transit. Let's first have a successful retail proven market for retail, and that was also said by one of the citizens. Like in that corner. Promote it, take out Universal Academy, get rid of that nuisance, find an economic development director, promote quality retail. We are underserved. Most of our tax dollars are going to Lewisville and Grapevine. And that's all I'm saying, it's common sense. If the plan which had all of the good intentions of being what it means to go... and yes, 20 years from now and believe me, I don't make money out of mixed use development... I'm very well informed. If the conditions come to Coppell, there will be a person that will amass the critical mass necessary to do a development and he will get it through and that will be in the future. Thank you very much. 19. I'm Amit Sangani, Edmund Haas, thank you so much and Commissioners. I've been here before, you guys know me, I opposed The Avenue project. So I'm against the mixed use. I think we should take all the purple off. I think everybody is fine with it. The word itself mixed use nobody understands what's mixed. It's all a mixed up plan so we got to get rid of it, period. I think what the gentleman just before me said is families come here for residential living. I met with Dr. Walthrup yesterday morning concerns about the traffic that's already there, Pinkerton school district etc. I informed him that he's new to the place from the Frisco ISD where he had come from. He knows how much growth Frisco had gone through. He mentioned to me he was surprised with the Denton Tap and Belt Line project called The Avenue. I told him 29 units are coming in on 1.7 acres. It was approved about a year back but there is no movement on it because there is no market for this place. Why would you want such high density in this place when Denton Tap, as you all travel in the morning, you know it takes you 15 minutes to travel two miles up the road. I mean it's just silly, I think the committee here can recommend to the City Council so that they should approve these things. We gathered signatures for The Avenue project. There were 67% of the homeowners that were not informed that gave us signatures that were opposed to the development of The Avenue project yet the City Council, the Mayor had it approved. I think it hasn't developed, if it was such a hard market for mixed, we would already have development. There is no market for it. It is not Southlake. I am sorry for the gentleman who thinks Paris is a great place to live, no it's not. If it was, it would not have such crime. People go there for tourism, they do not go there for a living. They have a huge problem in that country too. I mean it's not easy, there's a lot and we are nowhere P&Z Commission Public Hearing Comments (Exhibit A), May 21, 2015 Page 12 close to Paris. The Avenue project next to Dairy Queen is a fine walking distance? Please, it's not. Thank you for your time. Chairman Haas asked, sir could I get your name, I didn't hear your address for the record? Sure, it's Amit Sangani, 739 Chateaus Drive at the corner of Denton Tap and Southwestern. 20. Thanks for your transparency, I really appreciate it. My name is Chip Bunata, I live at 1521 Pine Hurst and my wife and I moved here five years ago. We came from the east coast where mixed use is very common and done well and is very nice. But you need a critical mass to make it work, you can't have the little thing we discussed over by the Dairy Queen area. It just doesn't work. And I also wanted to share coming from the east coast, mixed use also has a down side. We moved from the Village of Ridgewood, very nice destination town with shops and everything in the village. Even very nicely done, if the town fathers could do it over again, they wouldn't do that because the traffic is horrendous because it's so successful. The restaurants are great and there is high end shopping etc. Then during the week, the freight trucks have to deliver the goods to feed the businesses and the parking is terrible and you have to get thru the village to get to the high school etc., etc. to the point where a lot of the villagers in north Jersey would drive to New York state to do your basic Walmart run because you couldn't go buy a bucket of paint or do your dry cleaning in this type of environment. So there's a down side for mixed use even when it is done well. Moving here, we moved to Las Colinas in a high-rise and it's mixed use and I drive through that way everyday on my way to work. The last thing I would want to see in Coppell is downtown Las Colinas. So we love Coppell, we love how it's managed. We commend you for the way you run this town. We hope to keep it that way. I'd vote against, if I had a vote, the MXD-1, MXD-2, I don't think it fits within the character of Coppell nor will it ever the way it's fractionated across the whole city. There's not enough critical mass to bring it together to make it work. Even if there was, we don't want to do it. Because there's a big down side to drawing people and I just don't think it's going to work. And that's all I had to say, thank you. 21.I'm Marcie Sandall, 432 Beacon Hill in Riverchase area and I have to talk about Dairy Queen just for a moment. I'm sure that all of you here realize that you are going to have Dairy Queen ownership come to you at P&Z and say to you, well Dairy Queen is moving out and something else wants to come in. I just thought I would mention it. I don't think I'm clairvoyant but I saw ... I gotta tell you this, I ordered a small frosted cone dipped in chocolate, a chocolate dipped cone there. $2.59, I paid. I waited ten minutes, it was very busy. The lady who took my money said we fill orders in the order of which they came. Somebody else got a cone and they were sitting over in the eating area and I wanted to take mine and go. Dairy Queen's setup badly the whole business is going to go. But so I'm just saying that particular, that parcel of land that Dairy Queen is on, you're going to see it. Oh, I got my money back, after ten minutes, I said I'm sorry I want my money back. P&Z Commission Public Hearing Comments (Exhibit A), May 21, 2015 Page 13