Loading...
Property Owner's Comments RE Case # PD-250R3R-HDear Commissioner, Regarding July 19th's Case No. PD-250R3R-H, [Entry Feature Sign], Lot1RX, Block B: As a substantial property owner in the Old Town Coppell area, and one of many in Old Town who either stand to benefit or lose from the decisions boards like this one make towards future design affecting this area of Coppell, I think we have benefited from much of the City of Coppell's forward thinking. When the City enacts public infrastructure bonds to eventually build sidewalks, improve roads and parking, add tasteful landscaping, (and in Old Town Coppell's case) period piece lighting to enhance the historic appeal, we all benefit. When the City hires an architectural design firm like Looney-Ricks-Kiss which emphasizes urban land revitalization and and adaptive reuse, then implementing a land use plan with full participation and consent of all business and property owners as well as interested residents with a stake in the Old Town, we all benefit as well. We might not see those assets initially because their effects are long term and less tangible, especially when development doesn't immediately take place. So, when the City ostensibley purchases land adjacent to the historic district to oversee/maintain control of its eventual development, I think we can see a potential benefit and an intent to protect and preserve adjacent land as it "develops out". But I suspect that something happens when a City sits on its own non-tax generating property long enough, and ideas abound as other Cities condemned/ purchased land to develop publicly or in a public/ private relationship to generate profit for that City and the private developer, et al (IE. the city of Boston)...well, that is called gambling, maybe a more enlightened form, but a gamble non the less--and who's to say who benefits and when, other than the developer... I do know who will lose if this doe As a substantial property owner in the Old Town Coppell area, and one of many in Old Town who either stand to benefit or lose from the decisions boards like this one make towards future design affecting this area of Coppell, I think we have benefited from much of the City of Coppell's forward thinking. When the City enacts public infrastructure bonds to eventually build sidewalks, improve roads and parking, add tasteful landscaping, (and in Old Town Coppell's case) period piece lighting to enhance the historic appeal, we all benefit. When the City hires an architectural design firm like Looney-Ricks-Kiss which emphasizes urban land revitalization and and adaptive reuse, then implementing a land use plan with full participation and consent of all business and property owners as well as interested residents with a stake in the Old Town, we all benefit as well. We might not see those assets initially because their effects are long term and less tangibsn't work--that will be the tax payer, and as a substantial taxpayer in the area, let me be on record as saying I do want this development to succeed. It now has to succeed, and that should be a problem for anyone who is a taxpayer in the City of Coppell. I'll return to the original point of this letter regarding the above proposed sign; a sign notable for its non-conformity to any Coppell building code standard or design guidelines proffered by LRK (Loony/Ricks/ Kiss) and adopted by the City in January of 2007, a sign which symbolizes the developer's triumphal signature on his development. For us in Old Coppell, it provides one last attempt, no matter how feeble, to require a developer to (at the very least), reference the area in which he is conducting business in, and which will potentially affect all owners and businesses in this historic core from now on. Mr. Yancey needs to be held to a naming concession regarding the sign's actual location at the very least. I think this issue is of critical importance; because as small as an accurate, but correct name change seems, we set a precedent for the remaining time left for--and adaptive reuse of--Old Town. Will this be a development that stands in union with and integrates into the existing historic core? ...or is it just an attempt to opportunistically push aside its downscale neighbor for grander possibilities outside the limitations of a quaint, but antiquated part of town? Providing an excuse to eventual renovate out-of-existence the remaining Historic core? On a lighter note: Neon is fun. Is neon good in/ for Old Coppell? I don't know. Is a large sign appended to a giant Entry Feature--a sign as large as the facade of Joe Shirley's Barber Shop--a good idea? I don't think so and I surely don't think it conforms to "pedestrian-scale street signage" as envisioned in the Guidelines mentioned above (See starting at pg. 5's New Construction: pg. 15-- N: 1, 3 (c.,d.,e.); pg. 16--(N cont.) 5 b., 6, 7, 8 & I'll return to the original point of this letter regarding&nbs9. I'm sure many of you may react to a request to limit the size and scale of this sign with shrugged shoulders--not to mention the non-standard neon component since it's new and unique for Coppell--because the proverbial horse is already out of the barn so to speak with the approval on May 8th of the "Entry Feature" as proof of its moot point. The fact is that no where on that sign is mentioned the immediate local wherein it resides: that is a problem. "Main Street, Coppell," could be located anywhere in Coppell. We have been told by some Commissioners and City Councilmen, as well as the developer that this project is integrated in with the historic core of Coppell. "We are all Coppell, not Old Coppell...nor Main Street Coppell...", to paraphrase a Council member at May's City Council vote to allow the entry feature. (This Councilman, by the way, received cheers of congratulation from his fellow Councilmen for this observation)--I couldn't disagree more. On an obvious level, we are Coppell; but we are also and more importantly, the original, the historic Old Town Coppell district, not the Denton Tap business corridor, nor Sandy Lake's residential area or the MacArthur/ Belt Line corridor for that matter. We have our own unique character and flavor--for better or worse....and I'd say most people notice its difference in feel and look from all other parts of Coppell. When I see the name "Coppell" alone, I think of everything that falls within the City boundaries. When "Old Town" Coppell's name is used, it delineates a specific local, to restate an obvious point. The Developer's own wording (on the proposed neon signage) already belies something set apart, more related to the rest of Coppell: "Main Street Coppell" The developer, when questioned on this point, said he was already handing out brochures and the web-site's on-line rendering already marketing this very wording, "Main Street" "Coppell" and had been The fact is that no where on that sign is mentioned the immediate local wherein it resides: that is a problem. "Main Street, Coppell," could be located anywhere in Coppell. We have been told by some Commissioners and City Councilmen, as well as the developer that this project is for the last several months (a little presumptuously, I might add). He side-stepped the issue altogether, only saying it is too late to add this detail. This tells me that despite protests to the contrary, he never planned or considered partnership or integration in with Old Town much in the first place. Did his marketing research lead him to conclude that word(s) "Old"/ "Old Town") used in any pre-advertising blitz and "branding" opportunity afforded by this Entry feature might taint his project? Who knows. It is a sentiment to say something is 'one thing' as in the case of the Council member saying we are all Coppell, but that doesn't neccessarily make it so. What would it really hurt to have this proposed sign, hopefully modified to scale, reference the area of which it derives its existence in the first place? Maybe we could eventually meld more as Old Town and Main Street in Old Town. Wouldn't this be a "good-will" gesture easily afforded by the developer; a concession graciously offered since he already has been granted his mock grain elevator and silo, the imposing Entry Feature already having been approved? Please understand that everything Old Town Coppell represents, for better or worse, and whatever we are to become and still currently enjoy through a shared heritage and a sense of place is symbolized, in this case, by our name--Old (Town) Coppell. Why would he want to stand apart?</ The fact is that no where on that sign is mentioned the immediate local wherein it resides: that is a problem. "Main Street, Coppell," could be located anywhere in Coppell. We have been told by some Commissioners and City Councilmen, as well as the developer that this project is If this one last, possibly already belated, attempt to integrate the place name isn't required, I contend there will be a slow but perceptible change occurring over the next several years in the attitude of future Commissioners and Councilmen, to eventually push aside the "limitations" of an antiquated design overlay ("which is already ten years old" to quote Gary Seib) and allow more "visionary" approaches to this continuing problematic area, this eyesore in Coppell...the pursuit of future tax dollars will influence this direction, as well as a growing lack of historic connection to a visibly poorer looking neighborhood (how many original owners or their relatives are left in Coppell?) as compared to its thriving brother Main Street...especially in lean years. I see do potentially higher tax revenue for the City if this development is a success--and again, as a tax payer, I do want its success. But without cooperation and integration--forced if need be--upon this developer or any other for that matter, Old Town Coppell will languish, becoming two, distinct districts of town, delineated and perceptibly forming, albiet occupying immediately adjacent territory to one another. Future rental rates will remain virtually the same for the Old Town property owners, whose B but mostly C class properties are more or less dictated by their improvement quality, therefore less revenue for those owners in the immediate future. I see property owners scrambling to keep up with these increased costs with less/ little money for improvements and eventually the forced sale or demolition of buildings (outcomes of an 'enlightened, progressive approach' referenced above with newer Councils and Commissioners). These properties wont be suitable as they currently stand except as high scale service/retail If this one last, possibly already belated, attempt to integrate the place name isn't required, I contend there will be a slow but perceptible change occurring over the next several years in the attitude of future Commissioners and Councilmen, to eventually push aside the "limitations" of an antiquated design overlay ("which is already ten years old" to quote Gary Seib) and allow more "visionary" approaches to this continuing problematic area, this eyesore in Coppell...the pursuit of future tax dollars will influence this direction, as well as a growing lack of historic connection to a visibly poorer looking neighborhood (how many original owners or their relatives are left in Coppell?) as compared to its thriving brother Main Street...especially in lean years. I see do potentially higher tax revenue for the City if this development is a success--and again, as a tax payer, I do wan required to justify the increased tax base and for the costs of infrastructure/ construction required on these same lots once these properties sell or are foreclosed upon and then demolished. Who knows, maybe Main Street II will begin, as lots north of the development are acquired at fire sale prices and remaining property owners are squeezed out...its only one person's scenario/ opinion, but then again, I'm not gambling--at least not with taxpayers money. I hope you'll consider holding the applicant to existing design parameters which would provide 1) limitations on the proposed signage for "the Entry Feature" to be located on the Northeast corner of Main Street as well as 2) additions to the proposed sign referencing "Old Town" (or at the least, "Old") in the wording next to the word "Coppell": IE. "Main Street Old Town Coppell"/ Main Street Old Coppell Thank you for your consideration, Steven Chadick Chadick Capital L.P. 214.543.3717 srchadick@earthlink.net <mailto:srchadick@earthlink.net> g. 16--(N cont.) 5 b., 6, 7, 8 & I'll return to the original point of this letter regarding&nbs9. I'm sure many of you may react to a request to limit the size and scale of this sign with shrugged shoulders--not to mention the non-standard neon component since it's new and unique for Coppell--because the proverbial horse is already out of the barn so to speak with the approval on May 8th of the "Entry Feature" as proof of its moot point. The fact is that no where on that sign is mentioned the immediate local wherein it resides: that is a problem. "Main Street, Coppell," could be located anywhere in Coppell. We have been told by some Commissioners and City Councilmen, as well as the developer that this project is integrated in with the historic core of Coppell. "We are all Coppell, not Old Coppell...nor Main Street Coppell...", to paraphrase a Council member at May's City Council vote to allow the entry feature. (This Councilman, by the way, received cheers of congratulation from his fellow Councilmen for this observation)--I couldn't disagree more. On an obvious level, we are Coppell; but we are also and more importantly, the original, the historic Old Town Coppell district, not the Denton Tap business corridor, nor Sandy Lake's residential area or the MacArthur/ Belt Line corridor for that matter. We have our own unique character and flavor--for better or worse....and I'd say most people notice its difference in feel and look from all other parts of Coppell. When I see the name "Coppell" alone, I think of everything that falls within the City boundaries. When "Old Town" Coppell's name is used, it delineates a specific local, to restate an obvious point. The Developer's own wording (on the proposed neon signage) already belies something set apart, more related to the rest of Coppell: "Main Street Coppell" The developer, when questioned on this point, said he was already handing out brochures and the web-site's on-line rendering already marketing this very wording, "Main Street" "Coppell" and had been The fact is that no where on that sign is mentioned the immediate local wherein it resides: that is a problem. "Main Street, Coppell," could be located anywhere in Coppell. We have been told by some Commissioners and City Councilmen, as well as the developer that this project is for the last several months (a little presumptuously, I might add). He side-stepped the issue altogether, only saying it is too late to add this detail. This tells me that despite protests to the contrary, he never planned or considered partnership or integration in with Old Town much in the first place. Did his marketing research lead him to conclude that word(s) "Old"/ "Old Town") used in any pre-advertising blitz and "branding" opportunity afforded by this Entry feature might taint his project? Who knows. It is a sentiment to say something is 'one thing' as in the case of the Council member saying we are all Coppell, but that doesn't neccessarily make it so. What would it really hurt to have this proposed sign, hopefully modified to scale, reference the area of which it derives its existence in the first place? Maybe we could eventually meld more as Old Town and Main Street in Old Town. Wouldn't this be a "good-will" gesture easily afforded by the developer; a concession graciously offered since he already has been granted his mock grain elevator and silo, the imposing Entry Feature already having been approved? Please understand that everything Old Town Coppell represents, for better or worse, and whatever we are to become and still currently enjoy through a shared heritage and a sense of place is symbolized, in this case, by our name--Old (Town) Coppell. Why would he want to stand apart?</ The fact is that no where on that sign is mentioned the immediate local wherein it resides: that is a problem. "Main Street, Coppell," could be located anywhere in Coppell. We have been told by some Commissioners and City Councilmen, as well as the developer that this project is If this one last, possibly already belated, attempt to integrate the place name isn't required, I contend there will be a slow but perceptible change occurring over the next several years in the attitude of future Commissioners and Councilmen, to eventually push aside the "limitations" of an antiquated design overlay ("which is already ten years old" to quote Gary Seib) and allow more "visionary" approaches to this continuing problematic area, this eyesore in Coppell...the pursuit of future tax dollars will influence this direction, as well as a growing lack of historic connection to a visibly poorer looking neighborhood (how many original owners or their relatives are left in Coppell?) as compared to its thriving brother Main Street...especially in lean years. I see do potentially higher tax revenue for the City if this development is a success--and again, as a tax payer, I do want its success. But without cooperation and integration--forced if need be--upon this developer or any other for that matter, Old Town Coppell will languish, becoming two, distinct districts of town, delineated and perceptibly forming, albiet occupying immediately adjacent territory to one another. Future rental rates will remain virtually the same for the Old Town property owners, whose B but mostly C class properties are more or less dictated by their improvement quality, therefore less revenue for those owners in the immediate future. I see property owners scrambling to keep up with these increased costs with less/ little money for improvements and eventually the forced sale or demolition of buildings (outcomes of an 'enlightened, progressive approach' referenced above with newer Councils and Commissioners). These properties wont be suitable as they currently stand except as high scale service/retail If this one last, possibly already belated, attempt to integrate the place name isn't required, I contend there will be a slow but perceptible change occurring over the next several years in the attitude of future Commissioners and Councilmen, to eventually push aside the "limitations" of an antiquated design overlay ("which is already ten years old" to quote Gary Seib) and allow more "visionary" approaches to this continuing problematic area, this eyesore in Coppell...the pursuit of future tax dollars will influence this direction, as well as a growing lack of historic connection to a visibly poorer looking neighborhood (how many original owners or their relatives are left in Coppell?) as compared to its thriving brother Main Street...especially in lean years. I see do potentially higher tax revenue for the City if this development is a success--and again, as a tax payer, I do wan required to justify the increased tax base and for the costs of infrastructure/ construction required on these same lots once these properties sell or are foreclosed upon and then demolished. Who knows, maybe Main Street II will begin, as lots north of the development are acquired at fire sale prices and remaining property owners are squeezed out...its only one person's scenario/ opinion, but then again, I'm not gambling--at least not with taxpayers money. I hope you'll consider holding the applicant to existing design parameters which would provide 1) limitations on the proposed signage for "the Entry Feature" to be located on the Northeast corner of Main Street as well as 2) additions to the proposed sign referencing "Old Town" (or at the least, "Old") in the wording next to the word "Coppell": IE. "Main Street Old Town Coppell"/ Main Street Old Coppell Thank you for your consideration, Steven Chadick Chadick Capital L.P. 214.543.3717 srchadick@earthlink.net <mailto:srchadick@earthlink.net>