Old Town-CS090220 (2)
OPINION
(
Another View
by Jean Murph
I
What is the New Plan, the Vision?
Sometimes it takes an objective observer to look at a situation and describe what appears t
to be happening, and Haley Moore's opinion piece on this page, entitled What is the City of t
Coppell Thinking?, accomplishes this regarding recent old Coppell decisions. Rather than pre-
serving the fragile remainder of old downtown, the City seems to have a new and unknown (
vision. Already, the historic Kirkland house has been moved onto what is now a crowded (
comer, away from its position as the centerpiece of old Coppell. (
Now, with the City's apparently successful eminent domain effort, another almost-50-
year-old building, the old service station, will soon go down, unless the City can save or move
. it. One of the most charming landmarks in many Texas towns is an old, renovated service
station restored as a bakery, coffee shop or o~er compatible use.
Where is our vision, our innovative forward-thinking?
An historic old downtown is not new buildings made to look old. (The exception being
Southlake, which had no old downtown.) The top priority in old Coppell should be taking the
framework that remains and building to enhance that. The old service station could serve as
centerpiece for the Farmers Market at its current site or at the "new" proposed Farmers
Market site. Many cities, many developers would give a lot for such a renovated building in
their downtowns. Where is our vision, that we cannot foresee the charm of an old, renovated
building?
With recent City actions, the Old Coppell Master Plan has in essence been set aside. It
called for enhancement along the two historic roads, W. Bethel and S. Coppell, with store-
fronts, restaurants and gathering spots filling in along the roads, creating a pedestrian-friendly
atmosphere. The majority of parking was camouflaged from the toads, behind buildings and
landscaping. The new effort seems to reverse the concept, with existing old buildings being
moved out, and a "new" old downtown square established off of the main road, at the expense
of the real old Coppell. Why not do one project really right and put all effort into it first, before
moving to a new area?
While additional development may be desirable and needed to make a thriving old
downtown, where is the priority?
W. Bethel Road reconstruction was approved by Coppell voters in a 1999 bond election,
and it remains on a planning chart. Now, in 2009, dollars for a new road (extension of S.
Coppell Road into the Carter-Crowley tract), unapproved by voters and not budgeted, are
taki~g priority over the road approved by voters. Dollars for the new road include the follow-
ing: an eminent domain settlement of $438,000, taking a business away from its owner; build-
ing of a new, concrete road into and around a new public square; building critically expensive
extension of utilities (water, sewer and electrical) into the public square; and building a public
square, unapproved by voters, about which the Council and City are still unsure as to its use.
It's an expensive endeavor if all we know is that it's a new place to move the Farmers Market,
when actually many people want the Farmers Market to stay in a visible location. .
W. Bethel Road, a major east-west thoroughfare, is the heart of the old Coppell renovation,
with planned amenities of sidewalks, street lights, benches and a revitalized street for pedes-
trian traffic. Why shouldn't W. Bethel take precedence over a new road, particularly when
the new plan has just now emerged from closed-door executive session, and the Council and
staff are still unsure about its use? Some of the proposed uses, such as an amphitheater, will
be impossible with loud aircraft descending overhead, especially in the evenings.
Is the remainder of the Carter-Crowley tract now on the open market at this time,
and at what cost? Many new developers might now consider this a prime invest-
ment, with all roads and infrastructure put in by the City.
The question again addresses the unknown. Eminent domain, according to recent court
cases, is not to be used for economic development purposes. Hardly anyone involved in recent
discussions of this issue believes that the public square is a burning, priority City need, in and
of itself. Almost everyone believes that the public square is an effort to provide the roads and
utilities to a known developer, who will be set up with little infrastructure cost. How is this fair
to other developers, who must put in hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop their projects?
If we are not going to follow the general vision of the City-commissioned Old Coppell
Master Plan, then what plan are we following?
The public wants to know. The public has had no chance for input into this new City plan,
when they gave much input into the old plan. A plan is needed so that old Coppell is not
developed piece-meal, with whatever project or design the next developer proposes.
~/