Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies proposal to convert 145 West Towne Center to dog daycare after residents raise noise, safety and odor concerns
Summary
The commission denied a zoning revision to convert a former child daycare at 145 West Towne Center into a dog daycare/boarding facility after residents raised concerns about barking, sanitation, traffic near schools and property values; the commission was split and the application failed to secure a majority.
The Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission denied a request to revise the PD-178 detailed site plan for Building B at 145 West Towne Center to allow a dog daycare with overnight boarding for up to 71 dogs.
Staff and applicant: Senior planner Mary Pompavio told the commission the building (about 11,000 sq ft across two structures) would be renovated to provide indoor play, three outdoor yards divided by size, grooming and up to 71 boarding suites; staff recommended approval subject to replacing missing landscaping and administering any landscaping changes. Applicant Nazanin Javan described operational protocols including temperament evaluations, supervised enrichment play, 20-minute outdoor rotations for small groups, leash/valet pickup procedures, double-bagging waste and a commercial trash contract with pickup three times weekly (with the option to increase service in summer).
Public opposition: Dozens of nearby residents and neighborhood representatives told the commission the proposed use was incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and two adjacent child-care facilities. Speakers—including parents and the director of Coppell Montessori Academy—cited persistent barking that could disrupt young children, sanitation and odor risks in summer, safety risks where children walk and bike, increased drop-off/pick-up traffic and a petition of residents opposing the rezoning.
Commission action and outcome: Commissioners debated fencing materials, placement of outdoor relief areas, and mitigation options. Two motions were put to the commission: an initial motion to approve resulted in a 3–3 tie and therefore failed to pass; a later motion to deny also produced a 3–3 split. The city attorney advised the commission that because the request did not secure a majority in favor of approval it must be treated as denied. The commission closed the public hearing and the application was denied as presented.
Next steps: The applicant may appeal to City Council per local procedures; any future application would need to address the commission’s and residents’ concerns about noise, sanitation, fencing and traffic.
