Lost Creek TH-CS061221CITY OF COPPEI.L
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
S`T'AFF REPORT
Case: PD-213R-H, Coppett Commons
P&L HEARING DATE: December 21, ?006
CC HEARING DATE: January 9, 2007
S"I'AFF RF.P.: Gary [.. Sieb, Director of Planning
LOCATION: East side of Coppell Road, approximately 210 feet north of Bethel
Road
SIT__E OF AREA: 5.561 acres
CURRENT ZONING: H (Historic)
REQUEST: Re-submittal of zoning change request from H (Historic) to PD-
213-R-H (Planned Development-213-Revised Historic), with a
Concept Plan to allow the development of 39 townhouse units,
recreation, open space, and common areas.
APPLICANI~:
Owner:
Mr. Jay Khorrami
335 Martel Lane
Coppell, TX. 750(9
(214) 734-3604
Fax: None
Representative:
Mr_ Jason Marshall
The Marshall Firm
302 N. Market
Suite 510
Dallas, '1'X. 75202
(214) 742-4900
Fax: (214) 452-9064
HlS"TORY: In April of 2002, the City Council accepted the Ole! C'oppe!!
.19usi~~,• P/un. In August of that same year, Council questioned the
residential component of the Plan, particularly as it related to
D/FW Airport flight patterns. In December of 2002, Council and
the Planning Commission held a joint workshop to discuss airport
ITFA~ rt4 Paar I nPd
issues. D/FW Airport statTwas in attendance and at the conclusion
of the meeting, it was determined there was no compelling reason
to discourage residential development here, based upon airport
noise issues, On May l3, 2003, Council amended the Land Use
component of the 1991 ('om/~rehen.rrve Plan and enlarged the
historic district to include roughly 100 acres. Subsequently,
residential development was begun on property just north of the
subject tract. In May of 2005, Council changed the zoning in the
area tom Historic Overlay to simply Historic. In March of 2006 a
39 unit townhouse proposal was denied by Commission by a vote
of 5- I `T'hat case was appealed to Council. On April 1 1, 2006
Council remanded the case back to Planning Commission. On
November 20. the applicant resubmitted the case, with. the only
change being fronting of some units along Coppell Road.
TRANSPORTATION: Coppell Road is an unimproved, two-lane asphalt road contained
within a 50-to-60 foot wide right-of--way. It is projected to be
improved to a cancretc two-lane undivided road with a 60-foot
right-ot=way beginning in 2007.
Sl1RROUNDING LAND USE & 7.ONING:
North single-family townhouses; H (Historic)
South single-family houses, senior center; H (Historic)
Fast - single-family residences; (PD-89-SF-7)
West retail/commercial buildings; Fl, (Historic)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: "[ate (~c,mprehc-nsive Plan r>}~Muy 1996, as amended and including
the OId ('opp~~l! Ma.~ter Plan, indicates the property should be used
for medium-density residential uses on the interior of the parcel;
ONice/Commercial uses along the Coppell Road frontage.
DISCUSSION: Not only was staff opposed to the original zoning request for this property
last March, but the Planning Commission turned it down by a 5-1 vote,
and there was substantial neighborhood opposition to the proposal. This
request is identical to the one submitted in March with one exception.
units that backed to Coppell Road now front on the street. They now face
an active and soon to be enlarged commercial business directly across the
street. It appears this plan was developed to maximize density, not
conform to our planning efforts. For the reasons stated in March, staff is
still opposed to this request. The density is the same, the parking is the
same, landscaping is the same, overall development is the same, and the
land use component of the IIIJ C'vppc~ll Master Plan has been ignored.
ITr~M fW Paor ~ nf4
There has been no substantial change to the request which would alter our
recommendation.
As a reminder of staff"s opposition to the original case, we have included a
copy of our analysis of the earlier request as an ATTACHMENT here.
Our recommendation has not changed. If anything, we are in a stronger
position to recommend denial based upon development activity in the area
which follows the (llcl ('vpp~ll Afuster Plun. For instance, the townhouse
development immediately nurth of this property is about built out, and in
conversations with the developer, plans are in the works for development
of the two commercial lots at the corner of Coppell Road and McNear
Dave. Also> the Hard Eight Bar-B-Q is well under construction, Dr.
Swaldi~s building is occupied, we are in detailed conversations with
potential developers of the east side of Coppell Road south of Bethel,
preliminary plans for the Senior Center are underway, and last 'Tuesday
night Council accepted a substantial grant to preserve and rehabilitate the
Kirkland house. All these activities point out that the Historic District is
hcalthv_ ,active and is following the Plan laid out in 2002. in short, the
vision outlined in the Plan is being accomplished. This applicant has
chosen to ignore that vision, even though we have had numerous
conversations with him espiaining the Plan's concepts. [f, on the other
hand, this case were to be approved, street names would require additional
analysis, units would require a sprinkler system, and landscaping
requirementsltrec mitigation fees would have to be determined, among
others.
To gain statl support for development, density must be lowered (reduced
by 12 units), units that side and front Coppell road need to be eliminated
and commercial/retail/otTice buildings take their place as outlined in the
,tifuctc~r PIu,,, guest parking areas would need to be redesigned, townhouse
standards would need to be followed (number of units in a row, lot sizes,
widths, etc. ), street furniture, address identification, street lighting,
side~~-~alk dimensions, curb and gutter construction would need to match
that to the north. Because this proposal does not follow the Plan, this case
is recommended for denial.
RF:COMMENUATION TO THE PLANNING AND "ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff is recommending DENIM, of this request for a variety of reasons
elaborated upon above and in our earlier staff report included as an
ATTACHMENT here. 'Co summarize:
-too dense
-violates the (1Ic1(`onpell Muster Plun
-ignores "street friendly" retail/commercial/office development
-disregards several townhouse development guidelines
-offers an inappropriate land use proposal
-density proposed creates awkward streetlparking layouts
1 T F'1A ft4 Pann 3 of 4
AI.TERNAT(VES:
I) Recommend approval of the request
?) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend moditication of the request
4) 'l'ake under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
A~ITACf1MENTS:
1) Staff Recommendation Addressing the March 2006 Zoning Request Concept Plan
?) Departmental Comments (Engineering and Parks)
_3) Concept Plan
4) Tree Survey
5 } Planned t~evelopment District Standards {F,xhibit "A")
fTF='1if tt4 PROP 4 of 4
PORTION OF MARCH 2006 STAFF REPORT
ON COPPELL COMMONS
D[SCUSSION: In 2002 the 1996 Comprehensive Master Plan was updated in an area
known as Old Coppell. This plan, the Old Coppell Master Plan, outlined
lases appropriate for Old Coppell, an approximate 100-acre land area, and
elaborated on such topics as urban design, streetscape enhancements,
landscape features, access/parking, and land use, among others. An
important element of the study was a density parameter. Included in the
Plcrn was a residential component suggesting densities of approximately
six-dwelling units per acre and retail/commercial uses along Coppell
Road. Since Council's acceptance of this study, there has been increasing
interest and development proposals for the area---all in compliance with
the Plun.
One such proposal is located just north of the case before you tonight
Old Coppell Townhomes. A developer began implementation of a portion
of the residential component of the Plan, respecting the land uses
proposed. Reflecting success in complying with the Plan, that
development is now approaching residential build-out. Densities are 6.5
dr-'s per acre, slightly above those recommended in the Plan. In addition,
potential development of the commercial sites adjacent to Coppell Road is
being contemplated, and staff is currently reviewing a submittal for an
approximate 2500-square-foot commercial/retail building on the north side
of~ :Mobley Way. In addition, the Vaughn building has recently been
remodeled, the Hard Eight Bar-B-Que restaurant is about to begin, the
Historic Coppell Properties project is under construction, and talks are
continuing on an adaptive reuse for the Kirkland house. These examples
are cited to bring attention to the fact that the Dld Coppell Master Plan is
working and projects being occupied, constructed, completed or
contemplated all conform to the Master Plan.
With regard to the application before you, it violates the Plan in a variety
of important ways. It is too dense, the Tree Survey is incomplete, street
names need further alteration, it violates the Old Coppell Master Plan land
use proposal, and if allowed, violates the premises of a
residential/office/retail mixed-use project. To elaborate, staff has
reviewed several proposals for this property, all exceeding the
development densities suggested in the Old Coppell Master Plan. In each
instance, we have advised this landowner (through his development
agents) to refine and reduce his density, to no avail. The current request is
no different but also includes a component that violates the land use
proposed along Coppell Road. In its current form, this applicant is asking
for unit counts and densities in excess of seven-dwelling units per acre.
Page 1 of 3
Staff cannot support this increased density. More alarming is the request
to modify the land uses of the Plan and allow residential development
along Coppell Road across the street from heavy commercial activities.
The proposal would backside residences to the street and screen them
from Coppell Road by a six-foot tall masonry wall. This would be in
violation of the Plan 's directive to have individual businesses locate in
commercial/retail structures close to the street, creating an interesting front
door to the roadway. The introduction of a brick wall creates nothing but
monotony, does not establish a vibrancy along the street, violates the Land
Lse Plan, and does not make good land planning sense. In addition, the
proposed Landscape Plan adjacent to the wall is totally inadequate. By
eliminating the residential use along Coppell Road and extending the
commercial/retail uses to a depth of 100-1 l0 feet (as shown in the Plan
and as 4vas approved to the north), this application would fall more in line
with Council's vision for ultimate development of this area. In addition to
eliminating the residential use adjacent to the road, the density would fall
into an acceptable dwelling-unit count per acre. The decreased density
would allow deeper lots, eliminate the seven-dwelling units in a row
(another violation of Townhouse zoning), and reduce the required parking
substantially. In general terms, by following the Old Coppell Master Plan,
ten-dwelling emits would be removed, bringing this Concept Plan in line
with the overall plan for Old Town development.
In addition, the street system, as designed, needs some modification to
bring it into conformance with the one outlined in the Old Coppell Plan.
Street rights-of--way of 50 feet and pavement widths of 27 feet would be
easily accommodated with the proposed density reduction and would
remove some of the awkward parking bays shown on the applicant's plan.
The overall street layout itself is acceptable as it continues the existing
dead-end Mobley Way south and west to tie back into Coppell Road.
That said, the proposal before you is not without some merit. We like the
open space element. Design of the units is compatible with Old Town
guidelines. We could support a development with lower densities,
elimination of the units that side and back up to Coppell Road, redefined
guest parking areas, compliance with townhouse standards and assurance
that street furniture, address identification, street lights, sidewalk
dimensions, curb and gutter construction matches the development to the
north.
All in all, however, we cannot support this request, as submitted. It is too
dense, violates the Dld Coppell Master Plan, ignores the concept of "street
friendly" retail/commercial development as described and illustrated in the
Plan and disregards basic townhouse guidelines, such as lot
depth-maximum number of attached units. The applicant submitted an
Page 2 of 3
incomplete tree survey, requests development standards that ignore the
Plan and existing construction to the north and attempts to create a
development project in conflict with good planning principles. Perhaps
most importantly, the Old Coppell Master Plan has been followed by
applicants who have built in the district, be they residential, commercial or
retail developers since its inception almost three years ago. That the Plan
is viable can be seen by what's been built in the area. Staff has worked
hard with developers to ensure the integrity of the Plan was followed, with
the utmost cooperation from these builders. They followed the Plan, why
should this developer not? It is for these reasons that staff cannot endorse
the application before you tonight.
RF.COMMENDA"PION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff is recommending DENIAL of the request, as submitted.
Page 3 of 3
~_... o--
COPPELL
~ - `~~
o
E u
X ,~ , F
Protect ID PD-06-0060
Address 560 Coppell Rd
CITY OF COPPELL
2nd DRC REPORT
Proiect Name
r H i c i r r o f
COPPELL
~ ' ~ ~.
r a a
F ~. A s ` $ v
Pd-213r-h, Coppeli Commons
Proiect Type Re-Zoning PD
Application Date 11/20/2006
Case Manager Gary Sieb
Proiect Description zoning change request from H (Historic) to PD-213-H (Planned Development-213-Historic) with a Concept Site Plan to
allow the development of 39 townhouse units, recreation, open space and common areas on 5.561 acres of property
1 of 1
Agency Comments
Parks and Recreation 1. Park Development Fees (39 units x $1,285 = $50,115}
2. Tree Removal Permit will be required prior to start of construction.
3. Need a complete landscape plan to determine Tree Mitigation Landscape Credits. Credits will
not be granted unless the trees are shown on a Landscape Plan.
Engineering
1. Under 6.0 of the Planned Development District Development Standards, Item #6, the street
curb return should be 25 feet, not 20 feet as shown.
Additional comments may be generated upon detailed engineering review.
b
~ i8~ t F !3j . ,s ~ ~ l
9 /+ 8 6
~~~~~ ~ ~e3 ~ fi ~ ~ si sE~~ 6~ ~ ~ ~~
~i~~g ~ g~~ ~ t 8~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ i'~
$ z IF §
~ ~~~$ ~~~ ~~ t ~ ~ ~~
~~Q ~ d ~ ~ d~a° ~'~L a ~~ ~e
~~~'~~~ f$ ~~~ ~ ~ a i~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ a~~f~ E~ €~ A
~82~b~e ~ is ,~1 Eta 8~ ~~ ~w ~~~s~ ~~~~~ ~$~ ~~
~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~r ~ ~~ ~s ~ ~~~a# ~ae>~ a ~~ ~~
~~~ 8
~_- - . m c~c r w~ mnrtc
~pp
~aZ qq N
~Pii a
~~
~~
~o
Eg .,B
P 'ts.
~!I
~'I
~ ~ I ~.
iii ~~
i1}
~~~
R
y~Y o
~~
~~ ~~ ~
~~
€ ~~ ~~~~ ~
~~~~ ~
~~ ~s~R ~
8~~~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~~ ~~~a
~_~,~
k~li
~~~~
~~~~
~i~~
~ ~~
~i~
a
~~sa
E~~o r
Sad
_,
v
i
~
Y II
f n
oboe naddo.~
_ _ do .mm.
-~_ _
_.. r
_..
- __.
~~ ~ _
~~ Q
E
` ~ ~~-oa
~ 9~0
@ >~ S
F
I .40„
[g ~
I
p
o ~
~ l
l l i ~ 1 I~
I~ ~ I
.1 ~&_~
:, ~
~~ ~~
~~
r~i t
U
__ ~ ~*
g ~~
~
-
~
~ ~~~'
~.o- o-
~ ~
a
~
e~~~ae~R~"°~8aa~~eos~
~ i
;~~i
~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~ ~~~ ~~
~ ~~
;i~
~tti..t ~~.,
e ~ II ``
~~~~~~~
~~
~~~
~~~@~~~~
R
-r
71J~W~W W W W W L
F 17 1 J J 1 1~.
Q., Q Q Q Q Q Q Q'
F U1 U1 VI U1 U1 N V1 C
~ f _...
L
~nocinonc]c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0<
D O O O O C O O c
~I C7 (9 (7 C7 C9 C~ 0
V` ~_
I ~
si Wiz! ~~
L: Q WI CaJ J Q W T I
o',om'n WI°ll'~~
~ ~
I2!i
~la !. }.
NONNN O ~ ~~
l~l INIMI~l~! _
W l 1 ul WI ~.
»~,.r ,.~ I,. W »'» » »
~~~~N O O W O Oro O~ ~ ~ !n Q l/1. 1n I/) >IlJ. 41I~ W La. W W W~li. la Il..
a a a s ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ alma a a a a a a a a a Q a
~ (n' U7 In In Vl (n (n !n (n (nl ~'?
' I !
I
,T (Yt U'j R't CY R'I Q'i ~l Q' ~ ~ ~ I f 4 1
~OJ~.] ]O.nnnn0-nC](7 n~C]nninnnnC'C7U C)'L~:'1
~O OI O 0000. 0'0000000000000000 Oi
O~ O.. 0 0 O~I O O. 0 0 O' 0 0 O~ O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '] O~ ni O~
O OI~0i 01U 0~ O',0'~O10 O, C9,... O. UFO (~C9 C9 c~C. C^. C". C7 :. .7 C7 _
> _
~ (Y ~ ~ (Y
d'~~ R'R'Q' R'Q'Z Z 7 R' N Q'Q'~7; R' ~~(Y [Y ~[Y Q'Q'
Q Q 1.1 S 1. Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q~ w l i w ~ ~. ~, Q 5i w: Q Q Q Q Q Q
nnm cnonnnnOC~O mmmmmin ~~mnc~nnnn
W 1.1 Y lal Q W W Lit W W W lal W 11 Y Y Y Y Y alI Lai Y Lil W W W LI laJ
U U U V U C7 U U Q (1 Q C]I U V, U U U C) C) U V U, U c J
Q ~ I1f4i Qi QI Q, { Q
o i co', ~ mi ~~ c~ oc'i .r NI M, ~~ ~ a ~ ~~I~ o rn~ o{, n m~ ~o _~~ ~m ~ ~ol• o,1`cr~l -.~
N VI. ~D I~ ~ Q~'I C) INI~f~l~~1~~tO~i h~OOI OLIO INIM d L<] rD f~ OOI O~'J~
~. t~~. - I. ~. ~~,N N_Na Ni Ni Ny N.~N N N MGM r) r') Y~ r) M ~":. r7 "`i_~I
~~ 3U
~,
4 36 38 40 33 32313C 29 7f5 ~ ~ 7E
~~e~~.. i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e
s
4 - y y t r ---- --~~ ~. E;
u
~~~ `' ~
Y
.IYM A3780IY
"7
r~ y
,s
a
4 1~ SB9MJ
y
i
i i-~ ~g~
e' 'may
w 1.
~ ~ ~~
y' i
~.
18 '9?0 '112
~~'ii
k y k y y
~ ~ ' ' '
r. o.a n~ k ~
ti OVOX 773ddD~ '' y y