Old Townhomes-CS031120CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO • PD-197R, Old Connell Townhomes,
Detail Site Plan
P & Z HEARING DATE: November 20, 2003 (Continued from the P&Z Meeting of
October 16, 2003)
C.C. HEARING DATE: December 9, 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 (of which approximately 2.9 acres
comprises the Detail townhouse and recreation area).
CURRENT ZONING: PD-197-HO-TH-1/C (Planned Development-197, Historic Overlay-
Townhouse-1 /Commercial).
REQUEST: PD-197R-HO-TH-1/C (Planned Development-197 Revised-Historic
Overlay-Townhouse-1/Commercial) to attached a Detail Site Plan to
construct 21 single-family units (19 townhouses and 2 freestanding
residences), a recreation area, and 2 commercial buildings. The
Detail Plan relates to the townhouse and recreational buildings
only. The two freestanding residences and commercial buildings
will require Detail Site Plan approval at a later date.
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
Item #4
Page I of 6
1 [ISTORY: This property has been zoned Historic Overlay for quite some time.
There has been recent development activity on the subject property,
including the Old Coppell Master Plan, which was discussed and
accepted by City Council in April of 2002. In August of 2002,
Council questioned the residential component of that Plan,
particulazly as it related to the D/FW Airport flight patterns and
noise concerns. In 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. In July the current applicant
applied for and was granted a Conceptual Planned Development for
construction of 19 townhouses and 2 freestanding residences, a
recreational area, and two commercial buildings on the 3.8 acre tract.
The applicant is now requesting a detailed PD on the pazcel to
develop the residential property (to include only 19 townhomes
and the recreation area). On October 16, the Planning
Commission denied this Detail Site Plan and continued the case
to the November hearing. The reason for the denial was to gain
more information regarding the elevations of the townhouses,
assuring that they had a historic appearance.
TRANSPORTATION: Coppell Road is an unimproved, two-lane asphalt street contained
within a 50- to 60-foot right-of--way. It is projected to be improved
to a concrete two-lane undivided road within 60-feet ofright-of--way
with construction 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 ] 996 shows the property
as suitable for Historic District classification to include
small-scale residential/retail/office/commercial uses. In
April of 2002, the Old Coppell Master Plan recommended
comparable uses with more detailed residential application
on the subject property.
Item #4
Page 2 of 6
DISCiJSSION: When the Concept Plan for this property was submitted, we
discussed several issues related to the application, including
the use and its conformance to the Comprehensive Plan; the
development recommendations of the Old Coppell Master
Plan; the issue of noise and its impact on the residential
component of the request; details regarding signage, street
furniture, lighting, pavement elements, among others.
This application conforms to both the Comprehensive Plan
and the Old Coppell Master Plan as far as land use is
concerned. Where staff had a minor problem was with the
density of the proposal, suggesting a reduction in unit count
by three. We would comment that the Plan called for
approximately 29 single-family units, 13 townhouses and a
total of 81 living units (roughly '/z would be living units
above retail below). This proposal calls out 19 townhouses
and 2 freestanding single-family structures. Both the
Commission and Council elected to approve the plan as
submitted, and staff s density concern was not an issue.
The Detail Plan calls for construction of McNear and
Mobley Streets, two three-unit townhouse structures, for a
total of six townhouses, and construction of the gazebo and
pool area. Anew six-foot board-on-board cedar fence is
proposed to replace an existing fencing on the west, north
and east sides of the PD.
In reviewing the Concept Plan our attention was directed to
the details of the plan and included topics such as design of
street lights, pavement texturing, house numbers, street
furniture, and the like. An early concern related to a need
for more specificity regarding design details to show what
this project would actually look like -- it would 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 name blades and address numbers
were pointed out as items that needed to be carefully
thought out to ensure a unique development resulted. The
applicant provided a listing of "Old Coppell Master Plan
Design Elements" (see attachment) which addressed these
concerns from a conceptual level. Specifics still need to be
provided for some of these design elements, including the
provision of wooden benches and design of trash
receptacles and their locations. We presume the arbor
design for Lot X4 included with the Concept Plan is still
Item #4
Page 3 of 6
valid although no drawings were submitted with the Detail
Plan. Elevations of the arbor (which will be 17 feet by
17 feet) were submitted with the revised townhouse
elevations. Benches and trash receptacles will be
provided in the recreation area and are not a major
design element concern any longer.
We also had discussion regarding aircraft noise and its
affect on the proposed residences. That issue was resolved
when it was concluded that the 65 Ldn contour was well
west of any proposed residential unit being considered.
In addition, there was concern raised regarding the plan of
development for the commercial lots at the west end of the
development. We now have a generalized footprint of
those commercial uses, and based upon the location of the
buildings and the parking lots (the buildings hugging
Coppell Road, the parking behind the buildings), we
remove our site plan concerns but need clarification as to
when the commercial parking lots will be provided. The
applicant has indicated that these parking lots will be
provided when the commercial sites are developed.
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 generally fit 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 buildings, were ideas endorsed and emphasized by the
Old Coppell Plan.
The use proposed would eliminate an unsightly materials
storage yard, which currently backs-up to a very solid single-
family development, and response from that neighborhood
has welcomed the proposed change.
We have now received revised elevations of the
townhouse structures, as well as details on the arbor to be
built in the project. These elevations closely relate to the
design suggestions developed by the committee. Square
footages of the units range from 1,560-square feet to over
3,000-square feet. Four of the elevations (B, C, D, and E)
are almost identical to the committee's suggestions.
Item #4
Page 4 of 6
Finally, as indicated to staff, the six-foot board-on-board
cedar-screening fence will be constructed on the west,
north and east sides of Phase One development. The
remainder of the fencing will be constructed with Phase
Two development.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The Detail Planned Development included here closely
follows the proposal first submitted as a Conceptual PD in
July. The site plan is identical to the plan approved by
Council at that time.
The building elevations pick up on many of the facade
details shown in the consultant's residential examples, and
the applicant has done a thorough job of reflecting the type
of residential use our consultant envisioned for Old
Coppell. The revised plans closely resemble the concept
designs offered by the Planning Committee. Four of the
fve suggested structures are almost identical to the
committee's recommendations.
Design elements addressed include streetlights (see
attachment), pavement texture, sidewalk design, among
others. The Plun mentioned street furniture, unique street
blades, custom addressing plaques, and other distinctive
design elements that need further consideration and
possible refinement. In addition, the topic of mailboxes
and where they will be located needs to be addressed.
Staff recommends approval of the Detail PD, subject to the
following conditions:
1) Clarify when surface parking will be provided on the
commercial sites (the Landscape Plan states 30 spaces
are being provided now-is that correct?). Parking
will be provided here when the commercial lots are
developed.
2) Indicate where units shown on elevations and
perspective drawing are actually being built, what lots?
Revised site plan indicates which units are being
built on which lots.
Item #4
Page 5 of 6
3) Indicate on elevations which paint colors apply to
which units. This still needs to be indicated.
4) Dimension rooms and indicate on elevations square
footage of each unit. This information is now shown
on the Site Plan
5) Provide details on street furniture, street blades,
location of mailboxes, address plates, trash containers
and any other design details.
6) Need detailed drawings of arbor structure including
dimensions, building materials, colors, etc. Partially
shown on revised plans.
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 a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Detail Site Plan (5 sheets) (Not re-provided to CPC)
2) Revised Site Plan (plus enlargement)
3) Revised Elevations
4) Request for r.o.w. waiver (Not re-provided to CPC)
5) Window information (Not re-provided to CPC)
6) Old Coppell Master Plan Design Elements (Not re-provided to CPC)
7) Proposed streetlight fixture (Not re-provided to CPC)
8) Street light accessories (Not re-provided to CPC)
Item #4
Page 6 of 6
Q: \~p\02052\tlwg\02052-Site~lon.tl wg, '.`./06/03 11: 23: a8 AM
I 7 ' l' I ~ •[
fi
~~
a
«e~.
ie
:I
~3
5
P
~. ~
~~ f
r
~~ at
a€
C~
~o
p aE y~, `;to
j 6~L~ 33~ id'
obi 3 w
~~~ •Fi
•i~ a
eL pp
t T ai 53 isii
t 1m ~ o s'i~
~~f ~I wp ' =r ~9e9 a~ c r gFp
2 ~~
~~g
~~ ~ ~
~ 08 ~~~°
a r ~ ~~
F
~
m o
a ~ f B
g
W. ~,
E ~ ~ 4 s
f~~f f
~~,a ~ '
_ 3.
-, 5~.9
e ~~°
Q~° ~ ~ ~~
o,
i ~~~
e~
:~
"6
4
~e
x~
E
@~ h
'p
~
, e
5a ~ .
gnp
y81
gy~
"a
~ (e
d v 2
e
°' N 000 ~'.,E__ 57.~~~' ~~i J ~~~~ --~' it _ _ r
i vii _... 93.00' ~ cn u / 100.94' {n t ~ ~
au 8 ~ S V~ eu O ~ ~~
U ~ ~I
~ ~ ~° w ~~~ o ." u
n. I V P P I
~~ O 4 A ~ n
i ~ I
?- ~ o _. ~ Nom:
o ~ n O/ b° ^°~ i o
s °o L N / ( -' a amo °-o~ oBr
N 1 A ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo„ om~ o~~ i
~`. ~ ^_' ~ ! o ~ ~ 3 E i
~~'~~ w FF ~ ~+ I ~ ^~a ~ n~o ~ ama
I ~ 8 SP rest i 0' .O. c.~ ~ 7 $POC{es ° can o °n w _ _
id ' 4 I ti z L _
I N 00'00 00 E +, m •1 Uy O m°^
1 e ov 1 .99' ~ }~ aAE
UT N ~ O~G OI jOO~
N N } O_ U ~rnU m~, mO
V) o° N ~ o fLO _ N ~ +I 3~ h~AO I nu
u 100.00' ~ u 707.92' ~ .~..~ ' ~ '
4 i, __o u a~ tL. o ~
_. g/ ~~ w 0 ti I ~ w ~^ "~ ,Z5 9Sl M ,Fr LR00 N
Rl ~ 700.00' 103.72' ~ Y6 Z °" G - ti - ~ '
A
m~
w ~ ru W
o ~ b +~ ~ ;
b
n gi
'
~ 0
<
100.00 ~
~ ~
6 U
A~ ~ N
U ~, °o
I I m
100. 0'
o~ Open Spcce (NOA) ~ o
°. N 00'00'00" E °.
T 100.00
~1 ~
V
N
'~
~ U
o~ m,l. ~ m
`_ V
.~ i 6.
I _ ~~
~ ,00'00!
U
r U
W ~
,.
~ ~ m
~ g Sn
~ ~ r
O u L
o b
~;
> ~8 S{
/
~-
m`
m
u v n
~ r 0 4 = ¢ N\
' ~
r 103.37'
b~ /~ JJ
r•i ~i y b m
b b
~
d m
b
Y
J rJ ~S 3] c„
4
(.. N
O O
4
~ D
n ~•
u 1p
m
V N !
A L
CLa m W, A
~
tp m
__
N , \\
~' N O
N T
00'0000' E ~ O
X' V_ V,
-
1L 42'
107
N W `n ~3! -ti -~ 7 V
ISO N ~
o .
.
.
~. ^ A ~ vt''
ll0 ,Z 6!
C L
~ - W
~
^ ~ LO 4 0L .E5
Zq i. Ui
~ ~ o u n ,L'QZ
9
~ e W
a ti
s
~ ~
m
L`~ ~
,
S
X j
m
2 u
~ ra
q / '7d~ a m ~ ~
P\
; .S4 1
3~ t ~
F- F
'~ - _ / N
I
O6 ~
W ) A n
~~ ~
y
I
~_ ~SJ~ 01 ~P (gOHI n m 53BVd5 Ol N d0~' ~ a ~ u A~ - ~~ m ~ P
~ T N .00'SZ l p u +'-'~~/ A c"., .OCBL l -• ~ v' ~ ~'`~ti c~~ o
N ii' T - 3 9z9 0 00 S F ° .. ~~ 8 F +6'f L ~ \ ~ jl i
-, ,B'6! ,l'Sb~ .Zl I ,Of~ ,S! ~, 'Sl ~-~~~-,b'6f ~'l l--S'Of ~ a ~ m o
z~e! a et I .6~9 'D ~ A~
v X~ O
-~ - __ r ..~ < T g~ V ~ A
~ ,OO~S( 0'0S .OOSI ,00'Zb ~ ,0 'ff 0`'LC ~ ~ 100'Z> ,00'9 ,00'L9 ._, ,bC'4 SO S F wow I ~ nm
x ~ _ - ~ NA
-- v - s! _ _
l~ / m`~ - _ 1 /~ - ~~
,~ m ; ° ~ ~ ,~~ ~ o ~, ~ ~ _ ~ ~~~, fl ~ m
~ _ _ _ _
~m ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ m \\ m ou o
rn
°.~ A o v `- °o o °' °o a °0 4` o w o ~' \\ o m A 1 0
°'im o•ris ~ o o•r~s ~ r•ri~ awls ~ s•ris ~Y sa•s~s ~ f~
_ ~
~~ `. .,a,~ ~~o~e _ ~ -- b
~~ `-- - s~ - - ~ ;'9 sl ~,
~. i SL si ~\oa~os ,009! 4 ,oozb~~.__ .oo Y£ -OOt~fC - S - - ,oo's -.6o~zb J porn- ~ ~ - - --;zf~CS - - -.m:.41
`~ '\ ,60'66F ,m^ h1~91,80.a0 H-_-J,~ r~ -
-~~.~
~ __-- - _ -- n.~~
C
Z
1
r
n
O
m
r
r
O
z
0
m
N
m
r
m
b
O
z
N
c
z
V
D
~'
N m
~
D `z
r
m m
D n
~ ~
~~
;- m
O
i
ri
C
Z
y
m
z
V ~
D
N
m
E
m
N
N_
m
z
y
T
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE• Old Coppell Townhomes, Preliminary Plat
P & Z HEARING DATE: November 20, 2003 (Denied by the P&Z Commission 10/16/03)
C.C. HEARING DATE: December 9, 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: PD-197-HO-TH-1/C (Planned Development-197, Historic Overlay-
Townhouse-1 /Commercial)
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat approval for 2] residences (19 townhouses and 2
freestanding homes), a recreation azea, and 2 commercial lots on
3.81 acres of property.
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 recent development activity on the subject property,
including the Old Coppell Master Plan, which was discussed and
accepted by City Council in April of 2002. In August of 2002,
Council questioned the residential component of the Plan,
particularly as it related to the D/FW Airport flight patterns and
Item #5
Page 1 of 3
noise concerns. In December Council and the Planning Commission
held a joint workshop to discuss the noise issue, among others. On
May ] 3, 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. In July the current applicant
applied for and was granted a Conceptual Planned Development for
construction of 21 single-family units (19 townhouses and 2
freestanding residences), a recreational area, and two commercial
buildings on the 3.8 acre tract. The applicant is now requesting a
detailed PD on the pazcel to develop the residential property, and
preliminary plat approval. The Planning Commission denied the
preliminary plat for this property on October 16 due to required
changes in the Detail Site Plan.
TRANSPORTATION: Coppell Road is an unimproved, two-lane asphalt street contained
within a 50- to 60-foot right-of--way. It is projected to be improved
to a concrete two-lane undivided road in 60-feet ofright-of--way with
construction beginning in mid-2005.
SURROi1NDPVG 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/retail/office/commercial uses. In
April of 2002, the Old Coppell Master Plan recommended
comparable uses with more detailed residential application
on the subject property.
DISCUSSION: This is the companion piece to the Detail PD Plan just
heard. This Preliminary Plat conforms to the requirements
of the Subdivision Regulations and with certain conditions
being met, staff can support this request. This Preliminary
Plat approval is straightforward, with the exception of a
request to vary the r.o.w. width. Because this applicant is
providing 10 parking spaces, which infringe upon our
typical 50-foot right-of--way requirement, the applicant has
Item #5
Page 2 of 3
asked Engineering to grant a r-o-w waiver. This topic had
been first discussed during the Conceptual Planned
development application and Engineering is agreeable to
waiving the r-o-w requirement for a small portion of the
street adjacent to the parking spaces because a minimum
street width of 28 feet is being maintained.
As described in the HISTORY section of this report, the
Planning Commission denied this plat in October. It
was denied because of changes needed in the Detail Site
Plan that could affect overall layout of the project. In
addition, athree-member Commission Committee was
formed to meet with the developer and suggest
modifications to building elevations. Now that those
modifications have been made and the overall layout
has not been affected, we would recommend approval of
the preliminary plat with the same conditions as
recommended in October.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Because the plat reflects development as spelled out in the
Detail Planned Development guidelines, staff supports this
request, subject to the following conditions:
1) Electric and gas easements need to be determined.
2) Ciry utility needs will continue to be evaluated during
Engineering reviews. Easements may be needed.
3) Ensure all utility lines, including service lines, are kept
out of the driveway stamped-concrete paver areas.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Recontinend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Preliminary Plat document
Item #5
Page 3 of 3