BM 2015-06-18 PZCity of Coppell, Texas
1 PELL
Minutes
Planning & Zoning Commission
255 Parkway Boulevard
Coppell, Texas 75019-9478
Thursday, June 18, 2015 6:00 PM 255 Parkway Blvd.
1
2.
Commissioner Edmund Haas
(CHAIR)
Commissioner Sue Blankenship
Commissioner George Williford
Commissioner Doug Robinson
Commissioner Glenn Portman
(VICE CHAIR)
Commissioner Ed Darling
Commissioner Vijay Sarma
Absent: Chairman Haas & Commissioner Blankenship.
Pre -Session (Open to the Public) 1st Floor Conference Room
Briefing on the Agenda.
The Planning Commission was briefed on each posted agenda item in the
Workshop Session. No vote was taken on any item discussed.
Regular Session
Call To Order.
(Open to the Public)
Vice Chairman Portman called the meeting to order.
3. Consider approval of the minutes for May 21, 2015, with
EXHIBIT A - Public Hearing Comments.
A motion was made by Commissioner Robinson to approve the minutes for
May 21, 2015, seconded by Commissioner Williford; motion carried (5-0).
Aye: 5 - Vice Chair Glenn Portman, Commissioner Ed Darling, Commissioner
Doug Robinson, Commissioner Vijay Sarma, and Commissioner George
Williford
4. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consider approval of the Old Town Addition, Lots 1-11 & 1X, Block
H, Replat, being a replat of Lots 5R -9R, Block D, into 11 residential
lots, a common area lot and to adjust the lot size of Lot 5R on
approximately 1.7 acres of property located at the northeast corner of
City of Coppell, Texas Page 1
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 18, 2015
Hammond Street and Travis Street at the request of Greg Yancey,
Main Street Coppell, Ltd.
STAFF REP.: Matt Steer
Matt Steer, Sr. Planner introduced this case to the Commission with exhibits.
He stated that staff is recommending approval.
Mike Glenn, Glenn Engineering Corp., 105 Decker Court, Suite 910, Irving,
Texas, was present to represent this case, to address questions and stated
agreement with staff's recommendation.
Vice Chairman Portman 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.
Vice Chairman Portman closed the Public Hearing and a motion to approve
was made by Commissioner Sarma, seconded by Commissioner Robinson;
motion carried (5-0).
5. 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
property located at the south east corner of S. Coppell Road and
Heath Lane at the request of Mark Haas, being represented by Jason
Rose, J. Rose Architects.
STAFF REP.: Gary Sieb
Gary Sieb, Director of Planning introduced the continued public hearing for
this case to the Commission with exhibits. He mentioned 20 notices were
mailed to property owners within 200 feet of this request. None returned in
favor and one returned in opposition. He stated that staff is recommending
denial for technical issues which he read into the record.
Jason Rose, JR Rose Architects, 2120 Cosmos Way, Argyle,Texas, was present
to address staff's issues and answered questions and was not in agreement
with staff's recommendation.
Vice Chairman Portman 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.
Vice Chairman Portman closed the Public Hearing and a motion to deny this
case as submitted was made by Commissioner Robinson, seconded by
Commissioner Williford; motion carried (5-0).
Aye: 5 - Vice Chair Glenn Portman, Commissioner Ed Darling, Commissioner
Doug Robinson, Commissioner Vijay Sarma, and Commissioner George
Williford
6. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consider approval of a TEXT AMENDMENT, to Chapter 12, of the
City of Coppell, Texas Page 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 18, 2015
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to revise: Article 34, Division 1,
Section 12-34-7 - "General Standards, Table 1", to revise the Plant
Palette & Division 2 - "Tree Preservation Requirements", to revise
Section 12-34-2-4, "Definitions"; Section 12-34-2-11, "Tree
Removal Permit" & Section 12-34-2-12, "Protected Tree
Replacement".
STAFF REP.: Matt Steer/John Elias
Matt Steer, Sr. Planner, represented this request and introduced these text
amendments to the Commission with exhibits. He stated that staff is
recommending approval of the revisions which he read into the record. He
was available for questions from the Commission.
Vice Chairman Portman 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.
Vice Chairman Portman closed the Public Hearing and a motion to approve
was made by Commissioner Robinson, seconded by Commissioner Sarma;
motion carried (5-0).
Aye: 5 - Vice Chair Glenn Portman, Commissioner Ed Darling, Commissioner
Doug Robinson, Commissioner Vijay Sarma, and Commissioner George
Williford
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consider approval of a text amendment to Chapter 12, of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to repeal Article 26 - "Mixed Use
District Regulations", Sections 12-26-0 through 12-26-10, including
any and all illustrations or figures in its entirety.
STAFF REP.: Gary Sieb/Marcie Diamond
Gary Sieb, Planning Director and Marcie Diamond, Assistant Planning Director
presented this item to the Commission and recommended that the MXD
districts be rescinded to give staff, Commission and Council additional time to
evaluate the concepts as established in the Comprehensive Plan.
Vice Chairman Portman 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)
Marla Williams, 137 Hollywood Drive, Coppell, Texas
Patrick Brandt, 646 Andover Lane, Coppell, Texas
David Bell, 913 Parker Drive, Coppell, Texas
Emily Strickland, 220 Samuel Blvd., Coppell, Texas
Davin Bernstein, 228 Hollywood Drive, Coppell, Texas
Amit Sangani, 739 Chateaus Drive, Coppell, Texas
Vin Merrill, 117 Meadowglen Circle, Coppell, Texas
Vice Chairman Portman closed the Public Hearing and a made a motion to
approve the repeal of MXD-1 and MXD-2 zoning districts. Commissioner
Williford seconded; motion carried (5-0).
City of Coppell, Texas Page 3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 18, 2015
Aye: 5 - Vice Chair Glenn Portman, Commissioner Ed Darling, Commissioner
Doug Robinson, Commissioner Vijay Sarma, and Commissioner George
Williford
8. Update on Council action for planning agenda items on June 9, 2015:
In Work Session, Director of Planning Gary Sieb 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. PD -258R -SF, Villas of
Southwestern, a zoning change from PD -258 -SF (Planned
Development -258 -Single Family) to PD -258R -SF (Planned
Development -258 Revised -Single Family), to amend the
development regulations to allow one stucco home located at
822 Mango Court.
B. An Ordinance for Case No. PD -263R2 -SF -9, The Preserve at
Oak Grove, a zoning change 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.
C. An Ordinance for Case No. PD -280-R, Verizon, a zoning
change from R (Retail) to PD -280-R (Planned Development -280
-Retail), to allow an 80 -foot telecommunication tower, antenna
and facilities to be located 1005 E. Sandy Lake Road.
D. An Ordinance for Case No. S -1260-C, Urban Air, a zoning
change 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. An Ordinance for Case No. PD -250R20 -H, Old Town Addition
(Main St), PH III, a zoning change from PD -250R8 -H (Planned
Development -250 Revision 8 -Historic) to PD -250R20 -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.
F. 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.
G. The Westhaven PH IIB, Final Plat, to permit the development
of 67 residential lots and two (2) common area lots on 12.58
City of Coppell, Texas Page 4
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 18, 2015
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.
9. Director's Comments.
There were no comments.
ADJOURNMENT.
With nothing further to discuss, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:16 p.m.
Glenn Portman, Vice Chair an
Juanita A. Miles, Secretary
City of Coppell, Texas Page 5
Public Hearin — Mixed Use Districts
Pub 1c Comments
June 18, 2015
EXHIBIT A
1. Marla Williams, 137 Hollywood Drive, Coppell, Texas. My first question is, ya'll are voting for
denial or approval of the repeal? I'm a little confused on the terminology because the motion is to
repeal, so if you deny, then it stays in place, correct?
Vice Chairman Portman responded, No, staff's recommendation is that we repeal MXD-1 and MXD-
2. So if we vote for it; we are repealing it.
Ms. Williams responded, Yeah, I just want to make sure; I kept saying denial, wait a second, no we
are for it. I am for the repeal. I would love to see the future work about the Land Use Map and what
the zones that are designated in there mean and get the neighborhood input put into that. So that's
all I have to say, thank you.
2. Patrick Brandt, 646 Andover Lane, Coppell, Texas. I've already spoken on this last time. I just want
to add one additional piece. I'm glad that you've already verified that nothing actually has been
approved under this ordinance so far, so we have nothing that's zoned under this, so thanks for getting
that one straight. Part of how we got here in the first place, right? We have a Land Use Map that
designates areas that could potentially be used for mixed use, right? Projects were brought forward
under planned developments, right? It was pointed out by the public, including Marla, if I remember,
was one of the first people to bring this up, that we didn't have a MXD ordinance that applied on
those areas on that map, right? So then the ordinance came through, some of us rejected that
ordinance on some of those pieces. Part of what's still hanging out there and it's going to leave this
issue there and it's still open, is what's on that map, right? Because this motion doesn't do anything
to change that map. So I'd ask for one consideration, I hope that this is found to be friendly, amend
your agenda item to include removing from the map, right? One, the urban residential
neighborhoods, two, the mixed use community centers, three, the mixed use neighborhood centers.
Because if you remove those from the map then, you're not inviting the developers to come and do
this. They can still come in with a PD and still do the same sort of thing, that option is still there and
I understand that. It doesn't make sense to have it on the map and not have a zoning ordinance that
matches it, right? So, at least until this is sorted out and the things that staff is recommending doing
in the next steps after this, it would seem to make sense to go back out as the 2030 Plan asked for,
have neighborhood meetings, talk with the neighbors about what they want done for the potential
uses of these properties going forward, right? Get that more localized community input and then be
able to re -designate those areas properly on the map and have those zoning ordinances to go with it
and following that total process. I'd be interested to hear what Mr. Sieb has to say about that.
Mr. Sieb responded, the Planning Commission does not have the authority to go back and look at
the 2030 Vision Plan where mixed use was initially introduced to this community. The Planning
Commission is responsible for the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan itself. So the Commission can't go back and say let's look at 2030 Vision...
Page 1
Mr. Brandt responded, that's not what I was asking, just take those areas off the map.
Mr. Sieb responded, that was a comment you made or that several people made at the first meeting.
This evening we are not addressing the map at all. We are addressing the Zoning Ordinance
stipulations that would allow mixed use. If they are removed from the ordinance, then mixed use is
no longer on the table. So even those areas that are colored purple are actually zoned commercial.
So it sounds to me that what you want us to do now, in addition to taking MXD-1 and MXD-2 out
of the ordinance, is go back to the plan and take the purple off of certain areas in the plan. In fact I
believe I think you said....
Mr. Brandt responded, in fact, I believe I did, it's in the comments that were approved in the minutes
today.
Mr. Sieb responded, so our point is let's get the mixed use district out of the ordinance and then the
next step as we showed on the slide is to look at the plan itself. But that can't be accommodated
tonight because we didn't advertise taking the color off the map.
Mr. Brandt responded, right, but I thought the Council resolution at least provided for that possibility.
I'd have to go back and...
Mr. Sieb responded, the Council resolution said to have the Planning Commission consider A, B, C
and that's what the Commission's doing.
Mr. Brandt responded, Ok, thank you.
3. David Bell, 913 Parker Drive. I guess I'm a little confused too based on what Patrick was saying
and what ya'll are saying. To me, it should start with the map. In other words, we're kinda back
where we started when we went through with Kimbel Kourt; when we went through with The
Avenue. Those were going through without any MXD-1 or MXD-2 ordinances in place. So we are
still open to those types of possibilities. I think we really need to go and take a look at instead of
getting rid of MXD-1 and MXD-2 because we all decided and agreed that we needed to have some
type of guidelines and regulations in place if you're going to have mixed use on the map for someone
to go and say we want to go and do mixed use rather than just letting them come in and try to figure
out everything through a PD and come up with their own guidelines on a case by case basis. So I'm
kinda thinking that maybe the horses are being put ahead of the cart on this. What we really need to
go and look at, is, does it really make sense that these areas on the map are going to be bought up,
blocked up and redeveloped in a mixed use format or not? Is it really that likely that everything
along Denton Tap from Parkway down past Bethel School could be totally torn down and
redeveloped into mixed use? And that considering that we have quite a few of very new
developments all along that corridor. The same thing with Sandy Lake and Moore, you've got a
couple of very new developments along there. And the same with Sandy Lake and MacArthur where
we've got mixed use on the map. So it's just to me, I think we need to go back and re -look at what
is more realistic as far as future development and redevelopment. Is it going to be a mass
redevelopment of an area or is it going to be a case by case infill type situation where some business
didn't work in some area and we have to go and encourage someone to come in and develop that
property? Or, do we need to encourage other types of developments like community theaters or
performing arts areas or other types of entertainment or other restaurants, other attractions that would
attract people to Coppell and to spend money within Coppell. The one thing that is true, is the
Page 2
population in the Dallas/Fort Worth area is increasing dramatically and it's continuing to increase
and will continue. No matter what we do in Coppell, we're going to see increased traffic throughout
Coppell and increased congestion just because all of the surrounding areas are growing and they have
a lot of building going on. And the question is, do we just want to build up and add more residences
or do we want to go and build commercial enterprises that might attract those residences from
neighboring areas to come into Coppell, spend their money here, get the sales tax dollars from
whatever they do here? So I just think we really need to focus on first looking at the overall map
and then figuring out what we really want to have and what we see, it's hard to see 15 or 20 years
down the road. I mean it's really a difficult thing to do and the 2030 Plan looks wonderful but it is
just something that we really have to look at and see does it makes sense. Come up with what makes
sense, maybe modify it some and then if we still have mixed use out there then in some areas then
you need to have regulations and guidelines so that people know what that means, what the limits
are and what we're really looking for as a community.
Commissioner Robinson asked the City Attorney, David Dodd, as far as responsibility and authority,
Planning & Zoning would be able to change our zoning ordinances and our zoning maps but the
2030 Plan, we would not have authority over that, that would need to go to City Council, is that
correct?
City Attorney, David Dodd responded, yes that is correct. What you have before you tonight is
what's on the agenda, you don't have the 2030 Plan and I don't think you have the Comp Plan either
just these ordinances which was posted on the notices.
4. Emily Strickland, 220 Samuel Blvd., Unit G8. I just wanted to advise caution as you proceed. I
know that a lot of other communities around here are doing similar things. Flower Mound has been
mentioned a lot. I have family there and it has really divided people and because of questionable
practices happening there. Questionable land acquisition, tax deals, other things that have happened
and I know that's not what we are discussing right now. A lot of citizens got involved in the last
election and people that were very pro, `Let's build! Let's build! Let's build!' are no longer in their
seats. And the people who saying `Let's build with caution, let's take our time, let's get community
involved', those people are now sitting in those seats. I'm not saying `yes' and I'm not saying `no',
I want more information about what's going on, that's why I am here tonight. I am concerned about
traffic. I am concerned about schools and all of those things. But we are growing, we are building.
I love what has happened with the Farmer's Market and everything around there and if we proceed
with caution, I think that we could all find something that makes us happy and makes Coppell better
and keeps a lot of the `old' feel. A lot of the other places that have been building really fast, they
don't have some of the really unique features that we have especially like the Farmer's Market. I
have friends that drive from South Dallas, from all over just to come to our farmer's market. And I
don't want to lose that feel. Thank you.
5. Hi, my name is Davin Bernstein and I live at 228 Hollywood Drive. One of the areas in the red on
the map that's currently on the City's website. My comment is really to expand upon what the City
staff has said which is basically to focus entirely on the density and that's really what it seems to me
that the citizens are most concerned about. Mixed use like having a house and a store that are
somehow together on the same property isn't a problem. In my personal opinion, for example, what
we have now with one property that has townhouses where Kimbel Kourt is, then right behind it
there's a bank and a restaurant, none of them are tied together really make that entire corner, the
northeast corner of Sandy Lake and MacArthur just a mishmash, right? So maybe if a little planning
Page 3
had been done with those multiple parcels, we would have had a better outcome. So I think we still
have the opportunity with PDs to proceed with any particular development, right, any particular
property in order to make it something that would be consistent with the community. But I think
that's the important thing that I hope this Commission considers is that, having a very high, like some
of those townhomes that are built just north of Coppell by Vista Ridge Mall, right? Building
something that would be that high that would look down into a private yard would be terrible. But
there are other mixed use concepts such as what might be in Old Town along Coppell Road, right,
that could have a store front facing the major street, housing facing the back of it that could work
very well. I don't understand the details of all the definitions, but I hope the Commission takes that
into account, really tries to make sure as one of the previous speaker said or several speakers said
that were really listening to the community and making sure that our laws and whatever is approved
by this Council and the City Council something that creates that process that is more healthy for our
city to discuss what's going on as opposed to allowing developers to come in and say I have the
opportunity to put in MXD-2 level of density. Little bit of a random comment, but I hope it's helpful.
Thank you.
6. I'm Amit Sangani, 739 Chateaus Drive, Coppell. Thank you Commission, I really want to thank
the City Staff for going through weeks and months of work on this. So I also commend the graphics.
I think that really helped the audience to understand the density. From the graphic itself, I have a
few points. If you looked at the graphics, none of them had a retail front. None of them showed
commercial traffic. They all had a residential feel to the graphics. The lot size on all of those was
higher than the ones that were marked for mixed use development. For example, The Avenue. 1.2
acres, 1.3 acres having 29 units. Density is very high. But if you look at what you just displayed, if
you go with that, I think people would be happy. Three, do you see the height? The height difference
on all of those they felt like residential homes. The townhomes, none of them are like The Avenue
that has been approved that's three stories high that's going to stick out like a sore thumb surrounding
Dairy Queen at the entrance of our community in Coppell. You come from Belt Line, from 635, you
come in, you see a monster building and then you see residential homes. It looks out of place. Like
the gentleman before said, make sure if it's a planned development, we keep it to a consistent look
and feel. All the graphics that you showed were much, much better than what was approved for The
Avenue project. Traffic wise, they had space because they were all acreages that would allow that.
So I would encourage repealing the whole thing. If you could add removing the planning for future
also from the map, I think go through just planned development. Last request, don't make it to just
100 feet of notice for folks. The Planning & Zoning Commission you had only 14 or so input etc.
out of 21 people. When we went through for The Avenue project, we got signatures. We had 67%
of those and those are in the records. I shared with the City Council, etc. The people after we
approached each home and asked are you for it, they said they never received it etc. We provided
all the data, unfortunately it was too late and that's why The Avenue project went forward. But if
you go back to the data, I would encourage you, if you need it I can send it back. 67% of those folks
are against it. So my recommendation is not a 100 feet, go �/z mile. That way people around the
neighborhood know this is coming. If they want to get citizens input they will give it to you.
7. Vin Merrill, 117 Meadowglen Circle here in Coppell. I'm in favor of the ordinance. I read it to
mean you're going to re-examine mixed use and come up with a new proposal. I'm in favor of mixed
use. I look at those graphics, thank you Marcie, and I see places that if you want a soda pop, you
have to drive. Talk about traffic in this city. Every time you go to the Mansions, if you want
anything, you've got to drive a mile to get anything. If you had a convenience store down below
you, you wouldn't have to do that. I know Cypress isn't part of our area, but everyone there has to
Page 4
drive to get to a place to go. I think of mixed use where maybe people could live, even in a 3 -story
building and go downstairs to get something or maybe get a bite to eat, would be better than having
these apartments that are as dense but require more traffic, in my mind. The Dairy Queen project,
contrary to what was just said, you've got a gas station on two corners and a building. Well, that's
the entrance to our city. It's not exactly majestic as itis. So I'm not thinking that we .... it's a well-
designed building. Now you guys got the Kimbel Kourt one and you through it out without
anybody's input, it was bad planning; you did away with it. The next one which was a little better
you worked with it and come up with something. So I'm in favor of ordinance. I'm in favor of
mixed use and I would hope you'd come up with something that is more congenial to everyone.
Thank you.
Page 5