Re Property Owner's Comments RE Case # PD-250R3R-H (2)Did his original email "run on" like the attached?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 18, 2012, at 8:39 PM, "Keith Marvin" <KMarvin@coppelltx.gov
<mailto:KMarvin@coppelltx.gov> > wrote:
FYI... I don't know who this went to.
Keith Marvin, P.E.
City of Coppell
Begin forwarded message:
From: "srchadick@earthlink.net
<mailto:srchadick@earthlink.net> " <srchadick@earthlink.net
<mailto:srchadick@earthlink.net> >
Date: July 18, 2012 8:27:09 PM CDT
To: <srchadick@earthlink.net
<mailto:srchadick@earthlink.net> >
Subject: Property Owner's Comments RE: Case #
PD-250R3R-H
Reply-To: <srchadick@earthlink.net
<mailto:srchadick@earthlink.net> >
Dear 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 beenThe 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>
e 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 beenThe 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>