Old Townhomes-CS030619CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO : PD-197, Old Coppell Townhomes
P & Z HEARING DATE: June 19, 2003
C.C. HEARING DATE: July 8, 2003
STAFF REP.: Gary L. Sieb, Planning Director
LOCATION: East side of Coppell Road; north of Bethel Road; approximately
600 feet south of Cooper Lane.
SIZE OF AREA: 3.81 acres of property.
CURRENT ZONING: HO-C (Historic Overlay-Commercial)
REQUEST: PD-197-HO-TH-1/C (Planned Development-197-Historic Overlay-
Townhouse/Commercial) with a Concept Plan to allow the
development of 21 residences, a recreation area, and commercial
uses on 3.81 acres of land located on the east side of Coppell
Road, approximately 600 feet south of Cooper Lane.
APPLICANT: Kurt Jones Owner:
117 Cascade Way R. L. Robertson, L.L.C.
Coppell, TX. 75019 569A South Coppell Road
(214} 632-6684 Coppell, TX 75019
FAX: (972) 735-9976
HISTORY: This property has been zoned Historic Overlay for quite some time.
There has been no recent development history on the subject
property, although the Old Coppell Master Plan, which was discussed
and accepted by City Council in April of 2002, included this parcel.
In August, Council questioned the residential component of the Plan,
particularly as it related to the D/FW Airport flight patterns. In
Item #4.
Page 1 of 7
December Council and the Planning Commission held a joint
workshop to discuss the noise issue, among others. On May 13, 2003,
Council amended the land use component of the 1996
Comprehensive Plan and enlarged the Historic Overlay district, as
proposed in the Old Coppell Master Plan and as recommended in
April by the Planning Commission.
TRANSPORTATION: Coppell Road is an unimproved, two-lane asphalt road contained
within a 50- to 60-foot right-of--way. It is projected to be improved to
a concrete two-lane undivided road with a 60-foot right-of--way
beginning in mid-2005.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- single-family residential; PD-SF7
South -commercial; HO-C
East -single-family; PD-SF-7
West -light industrial; PD-LI
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan of May 1996 shows the property
as suitable for Historic District classification to include
small-scale residential/retaiUoffice/commercial uses. In
April of 2002, the Old Coppell Master Plan recommended
comparable uses with more detailed residential application
on the subject property.
DISCUSSION: Because of the complexity of this request, we will address
this application from the following issue areas:
1996 Comprehensive Plan
In May of 1996, City Council approved an update to the
Comprehensrve Master Plan showing the subject property
as suitable for Historic District uses. Although not specific
in detail, that Plan recommended uses which would
preserve the character of the area. Because of a limited
budget (approximately $50,000), our consultant did not
address specific uses in the Historic District. He did,
however, include an example of his firm's work on a
Historic District done in another Texas community
(Appendix B of the Plan), and recommended a similar
concept for our historic area. His example was quite
comprehensive and included Street Design, Land Use,
Building Height, Setbacks, Building Materials, Signs, and a
Item #4
Page 2 of 7
number of other important elements. Under Land Use he
listed retaillcommercial, residential, mixed use, and
churches as desirable uses. More specifically related to the
residential component, he recommended a variety of types,
heights, setbacks, typical screening, and building materials
as appropriate for the district. The application submitted
here has incorporated many of those guidelines in this
request.
Old Coppell Master Plan
A continuing and growing interest in the area resulted from
the Comprehensive Plan, and to further elaborate and
clarify it, Council authorized a consultant study in
November of 2001 to refine the Plan and be more specific
with uses to be included in the area. The Old Coppell
Master Plan (an approximate 100-acre land area) addressed
that issue and was accepted by City Council in April of
2002. This plan presented a much more detailed analysis
of the area than the earlier Comprehensive Plan and
included the additional topics of urban design, streetscapes,
landscaping features, access and parking, among others. In
addition, detailed study was done on the appropriateness of
a residential component, where it should be located, its
density, building type, construction materials, and so on.
The Old Coppell Plan proposed additional single-family
and townhouse use for the area included in this request and
the application being considered here reflects that
recommendation.
Noise Impact
One topic not addressed by the Old Coppell Master Plan
was the issue of noise and its impact on proposed
residential development vis-a-vis aircraft noise generated
by the D/FW International Airport. To gain additional
information on this subject, City Council held a joint
session with the Planning Commission on December 10,
2002, to review potential noise impacts on residential
development. Representatives of the airport were in
attendance and stated they could take official action on
only those residential projects which were within the 65
Ldn flight noise contour, although they might be opposed
to any residential construction beyond that contour. In
looking at the possibility of noise irritation specified by
D/FW Airport noise guidelines, this proposal lies more than
1100 feet outside the 65 Ldn contour. It is, therefore, not a
major factor in staff analysis of determining whether this
Item #4
Page 3 of 7
use is appropriate based upon its location and by D/FW
staff testimony on December 10 (please see attached noise
contour exhibit). Therefore, although the Old Coppell
Master Plan did not specifically address the noise issue,
information provided by D/FW Airport staff at the
December 10 joint meeting, and the zoning request location
suggests no compelling legal reason to discourage
residential development on the subject parcel.
Conformance to the Plan
In reviewing the applicant's requested land use and the use
proposed by the Old Coppell Master Plan, we find
compliance with the Plan. The elevations of the proposed
residential units fit well with the period architecture suggested
by our consultant. The street pattern is almost identical to the
one laid out in the study. The commercial uses shown at the
entry to the subdivision with the 15-foot front yard setback
and parking proposed to be located behind the building were
ideas endorsed and emphasized by the Old Coppell Plan. The
use proposed would eliminate a materials storage yard, which
currently backs-up to a very solid single-family development,
and initial response from that neighborhood welcomes the
proposed change.
Workshop Direction
On August 13, 2002, there was an item on the City Council
workshop agenda related to the Old Coppell Master Plan.
Specifically, the City Manager asked for direction regarding
the Plan. This request was based upon information the
Manager's office had received indicating Council might not
be comfortable with the direction the study suggested,
particularly with regard to the residential recommendations.
During that workshop, Council discussed the 1996
Comprehensive Plan, the 2002 Dld Coppell Master Plan, the
uses proposed in each document, the issue of airport noise
and its potential affect on the Old Coppell area. The ensuing
discussion revolved around the fact that the zoning of the
property contemplated for future residential development was
currently zoned HO-C, and that zoning classification does not
allow residential construction. After considerable
deliberation, the Crty Council instructed the Ciry Manager
that Council's position was to back the zoning, even though
the consultant felt residential uses were needed. In addition,
although the concept plan recommended residential uses, the
Council would not support it and instructed staff" to
Item #4
Page 4 of 7
discourage arty residential zoning applications within the
area.
Staff Concerns
Although we advised the applicant of the above-stated
comments, a request for rezoning was submitted for public
hearing. On the one hand, the applicant feels the Old Coppell
Master Plan cleazly encourages residential development on
the subject property. The applicant further believes he has
addressed the suggestions made in that Plan relative to land
use, building type, construction materials, and the overall plan
of development. On the other hand, members of City Council
stated they did not recommend rezoning this property to
accommodate residential development
From a planning perspective and reviewing this request
strictly from the Council's Old Coppell Master Plan, this
application generally complies with that Plan. We do have
some concerns with this request. Although the use proposed
fits the general land use plan--residential development--the
density is greater than the plan suggests. The Plan calls out
approximately 29 single-family units, 13 townhouses, and a
total of 81 living units (roughly one-half would be living units
above retail below). This proposal calls for 19 townhouses
and 2 freestanding single-family structures. Although this
proposal reverses the number of freestanding structures and
the townhouse units, the concept is in line with the Old
Coppell Master Plan. With a slightly reduced density count,
this request complies.
An eazly concern related to a need for more specificity
regarding design details to show that this project is unique, as
it will set the pattern for future developments coming into the
area. Elements such as street furniture, the use of materials
other than concrete for sidewalks, curb design, street lighting
fixtures, custom street blades and address numbers aze all
items that need to be carefully thought out to ensure unique
development results. The applicant has provided a listing of
"Old Coppell Master Plan Design Elements" (attached) which
addresses this concem. Because this is a conceptual PD, (by
ordinance, a detailed plan will be submitted within 6 months),
staff is comfortable with this listing, provided specific
exhibits aze provided when the Detailed PD is submitted.
Finally, it must be restated that although this application
meets the recommendations of the Old Coppell Master Plan,
Item #4
Page 5 of 7
members of Council have stated they will not support
residential development on this tract. From a planning
perspective, the request addresses the recommendations of the
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Although this is a conceptual PD plan, the applicant has
done a thorough job in reflecting the type of residential use
our consultant envisioned for Old Coppell. His conceptual
site plan is almost identical to the one outlined in the Plan,
and the uses proposed track with the consultants'
recommendations. The density is, however, somewhat
greater than that stated in the Plan and a reduction of two
to three units would be more in line with the Plan.
Additionally, the applicant needs to be a bit more creative
in establishing a unique housing environment in Coppell.
The Plan mentioned street furniture, unique street blades,
custom addressing plaques, brick sidewalks and a variety of
other unique design elements that this applicant needs to
consider.. We understand these design concerns will be
addressed-as outlined in the "Old Coppell Master Plan
Design Elements"-with submission of a Detailed PD.
An additional tree is needed on the south end of the parking
bay; it appears that lot #4 on the southern parcel is
infringing upon the 15-foot rear yard setback; the concept
plan and landscape plan do not match with regard to the
subdivision entrance; the colored elevations exhibit does
not track with the site plan footprints for Block A, Lots 2-6;
how does one enter the bedroom on Plan TH-1?
If these concerns are addressed, this application complies
with the Old Coppell Master Plan. What it does not
comply with is the existing zoning on the property and the
position of some City Council members.
That said, staff recommends approval of this request
provided:
1. Density is reduced 3 units to comply with the
Old Coppell Master Plan.
2. Detailed plans will be submitted for approval
before any building permit is issued, including
the commercial parcels (which will require site
plan approval).
Item #4
Page 6 of 7
3. More detailed information regarding street
furniture, signage, building addresses, sidewalk
material, etc., is submitted for staff review prior
to Detailed PD approval.
4. A detailed plan for Phase I must be submitted
within 6 months of concept PD approval.
5. Developer needs to acknowledge that Phase I
development will require dedicated street access
and City approval of all street plans.
6. The above listed concerns in the staff report-
additional tree, lot #4, Block B rear yard
setback, floor plan issues, etc.-- are addressed to
staff's satisfaction.
7. Front and side yard setbacks need to specify
minimum dimensions being proposed, as well
as average setbacks.
8. State minimum rear yard and garage setbacks on
site plan.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Recommend approval of the request
2} Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at alater date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Conceptual Site Plan
2) Landscape Plan
3) Conceptual Floor Plans
4) Elevations (of a portion of the project)
5) Noise Contour Map
6) Old Coppell Master Plan Design Elements listing
7) Street light design
Item #4
Page 7 of 7
J
S
u
0..M
Hs r•
DMapuo.
u
3~
Z6 '
. ~- [- .
f/
.. I ro
i
4l
7D
a ~
at st
17 n
1
~IyI _ I I
~ ^~ J
J
1 j-~ III
i
.,.
N to w- ,,:ih ~ rw
\ ~
E' ~._._. 30HD
N•
a tao H -_-- '
? u[} ~~
NOISE CONTOURS
,zL
/ HMayr[o, bL.
~ IN
/ l
rt~ $~
65 r . s °nrrtrt[r
Pixuln ..5} 4. _
' ywr o'd~' wros.l ~~~5 t r. ~[~~
r ~ ~, ~rt ~f?v~ n
~o coxraMrz vArN I/`L_-/ # ~ }.vyi:\yHK'~i+YSOC : ~4~5
a 4
?~ e.sr(V"~~.. ~(L 3~~wYlsq. crtRo~ !Y- ~r
/rr r~rrwN 4VD eL~Q jt ~,~~ ~~rtLS(S ~RHI~[. yc:+t~.
a CM~~ ~iKB WA•r \LVD -~ N[/I ~~ (DAE~j Q!~ly[ ~e
r [APr.. t '~~',rwi n
p~ NISIr 4r(N Rlb .. ~/ S -'i7+~ M[AGHbItP. [hlq[YI~
+` :N na ;F „pLta 1 irR(Lla ,s _~ rN£w!T.LL'9:..
pC saYDU~ Ax ~ ~' ~"- sa ~vG ~ -.
aid.[
t ~ 6A } y` ""
I I ~- °'
r'r4>•~ NiudAr _ ' ~m e
p" ~ n
Dfr}ON GHSONi ~.[ 8 -l jT. y~
3 I Y `~ Ewe q ~ ' LIf
y G _ w~ N ~ _ PPr
[I^St I [ i ~ ~ y ~ ' ~~SWtLOY ~ 9 a
a l~f a M/L[Lf I
I .rf[s l ~ S srNUa; i~ [
rgnwrolxf ~r?a4 s~Qi ~q NI[a}L.Yl r°rln: r11i'~~~Y'YW
u[., osLwP~[ ~ 3 ~~OR% °""f ~a; swW~l. cwotC~~w[[S1 .-~~1t
1 1 } ~ -wrtN ~%k11°Ltf. L[rc[ptr wa ~Y'
ilrre. .L`" 4i (wJ[fl161 sM'NIM i/ltltp[tn Lisp! 4 ~(ltiyp0 B EtNN~i
wltyra ~ YC~~ar..L `~ \Srt[r ~yt _pd~ '~i s~~f^'oiht. 6 i roY[ LfP[L~
Nruynle.r yY ~. -.. A' SRA"IOYI -r ~a ?W'p ~~ .N~r'ro ~~ ~~c ~ X181[
• Nrylle NDrtr~ M1NSA[l Sj r\V~ A ~ ~C!'Y~ l 's~'l"~ •~i ''~'ISS t+~~ _
LHS 9
_ru.r c ~a ~ f:'~rgwl scroot g t .tAa" o,. ',,, d m. y ~( ~.
_ surtt~ i [r awtl ~ wNM" ~ ~ 'b, j1t; a~ s -. rw~ NrartS° +Ar.° ~y
tpt.r n:: z ~~mr': ; ~ ~~''r' ~:. ~t-RIyU' -• d°5~~ _.~ w~S~ ny X40
70 •~4 _~"t~ "° '~ ~' ~~ .~ ~~, a~[~ ~ ~<t[I L..,t lw' ~' 'r<ICM
Si*e .~a Jimm'y'"~1~L3VVYw[[a //~ ~~ ~_
~ _ ' S ~ L r~aS11 / '
% /~ .
~_ a % ~
sn . sw • yytNAPEA _ orraL 8 i~~s $ ~ / ~
~ e
675 AIRIY ~e
G1[wr
COtIDI i~~ ~ ~ K/fN,
rd ,
~'~ ~ S wrwr N
D I~1~ [~
wlHrr
canoHa ~ \~ n Y
l
9 - ~ ~.~~ v
75 __
SIAt[SHM ? ,S7\
SI !~ v, "iJ
f
g
iz `' ° `te, k r e
ati g
~ a s:, ~ ~ °
,,, \ _ r
v za e° ~ ee m 6 `~ ,~ °,
.. > g,~ VA [ aL
5~ a - v.~
A. ei T'ad '°„ L
o
Y~Ma ~ N v
~1
w Z ^ sr ~ ryl~ ffC1WYi~Ph ,.
l2Y ,t mrf ~6 y$ _
~° yr' 05 ~• 2 is ..
* ~ ' ~ ~ `
S, • ~. ,a,,,,ls
~'` ~'° 7a ''_ ~ YArS[0[ Ht~ s~ S ~~jl~~"""IL rdM'1
1 ~ ~ ~ is kb ~ ¢ ~
L Ll t _~ air a a ,. 4, c, E
J b ~
1 ~^ C y ~y7ra y ,
III, I I I I a uo wt[ o uy I s~ b r-t~' ati ,yam['
' I - ,"1°-s N i I O \ hlalM~e; .,O.OSP~m,N`y
~ .'t,. [
_ OI i~l I _ a \ ^ i ~~Gr~~s[iee
r
OLD COPPELL MASTERPLAN DESIGN ELEMENTS
Old Coppell Townhouses
• Wooden Benches in common and pool areas (p. i4~
• Decorative Trash receptacles (p. i4~
•:• Historic Streetlights (arched design) (p. l4~
• Shared parking on one side of street (p. i~~
• Square Edge Monolithic Curb Design (per staffl
• Decorative Concrete/ Paver Accents (per staffl
• "Salt finish" Concrete (historic finish) (per staffl
• Historic-Style Construction (p. i6~
• Shallow Front Lawns (p. i6>
• Will provide "lived-in" atmosphere to area (p. i i~
•:• Fulfills Short Term Goal of Residential Development (p. zs>
zo•x~eu•
DST1
XPK-1
ch
N
r
.-.
M
0
F-
N
....
N
W
H
7
J
LL
~D
~• r
..........
2,7 ~•
~` _
~ 25 ~~ ~
C/1
W
~
0
x ~
~ E
o a
H W
a s
w ~
0
a v
0
U
~:
~:
~_
4~