Loading...
PD106-CS 861103The City With A Beautiful Future P. O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 214 - 462 - 0022 November 3, 1986 David Phillips P. O. Box 101 Coppell, TX 75019 RE: Phillips Addition Abstract 301, Tract ZO.1 Dear lvir. Phillips: Based upon a complaint received by the Inspections Department and an investigation of the referenced property, you are in violation of Coppell Code of Ordinances regulating trash disposai. Numerous bricks and waste conorete litter the undeveloped area, especially near the drainage easement. Please cause those materials to be removed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice, or no later than Novembew 18, 198~ Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 46Z-00ZZ, ext. Z74. Sincerely, LAnda S. Varonich, R.S. Community Codes Inspector LSV/dgc cc: Dale Jackson, Chief BuildinE Inspector ClI'Y OF COP~ELL PLAI,INII4G AI~D ZOi-~iI~G C I TY lt6 LL COPP~LL, T)JY~A $ APPLICAllO.N FO:: ZOIgiNG CHAt~GE )~ailin~ ~aar~ss.~ / ~hon~ LEGAL DESCrIPTiON OF PROPERTY SOUG!iT TO BE ]IEZONED: .' (lf ~dditionnl ~pace i~ l~eeded for d~cripfion, thc d~cription may bc put on a sepnra~ shcc~ and attached hereto.) See attached survey plan showing ll acres outline,d ..min red' ! hereby request that the above' described property be changed from ~ts present use which is "2-Fl and Commercial" District Classification to a ':2-Fl and Commercial District Classification with a special use permit to sell sand and 9ravel for a period of five {5) years while grading per plan submitted w..ith this application for the following reasons: :-..-'-.~.i.' 1. The land was mined years ago. and is now lower than 100 year flood on the South side. An unsafe condition exists next to SF12. There is a 26' sheer drop on the East side. {Children are frequently.seen playing in this area and could be seriously injured.) Too much slope North to South. Need control slopes to prevent loose sand from washing into the creek. THERE ARE NOT DEED RESTRICTIONS PERTAINING.TO THE INTENDED USE OF-THE PROPERTY. STATUS OF APPL]CAI~IT: Owe)er ~ Tenant, Prospective Purchaser · ) have atLqched hereto as Exhibit "A" a Plat showing ~e property which is the subject of this ~'~ quested Zoning chnn~e and have rend the following note concerning the ~por~nce of my submit- tin: to the City ~ st~fi/cient legal d~cr/ption. NOTE: The lc=al d~cription is used to publish notice of the required heaan~s and in the prepa:~tion of the finnl ordinnnce ~rnntin~ the zonin: chan:e. The description must be sulficient so ~ ~ allow a qualified sma, eyor to take the description and )o~te and mark oiI ~e t~ct on the ~-ound. Each applicant should protect himself by haydn: a su~eym' or h~ attorney approve his legal desmiption. Failure to do so by the applicant mn)' result in delay in p~$e of the ordinance or the ordin:nce heinz declared invalid at some hter date ~c of an i~ufiident le~E description. (The folloxvin~ Ceriifi~qte may be used by t~e nppli~nt to ~ive notice to the City of the sufficiency of t),e le:nl descrip~on, however, ~e ~me ~s not a requir~t oi ~e Appli~tion.) CEETIF1CATE I hereby ce~ify tht I have checked ~e leal d~cripfion of the prope~ 8~ibe8 in this ~on and fl~e same describes ~e ~nct of had sho~m on the Plat nt~ched hm'eW as Exhibit "A" and ~id d~cription h sufficient to allow qual~ied Sm~vor W l~te and mark off ~qid ~act on Sround. * Su~eyor or Attmmey fro' Appliaqnt GOAIBLIL TIN~ ENMINEERB Hr. David Phillips Box 104 Coppell, Texas 75019 Re= Proposed Site Work for David Phillips Dear David= We have reviewed the proposed cut and fill operations that gou propose on the property aC Meadow Creek Road. In reviewing the drawing September 11, 1978, we conclude thaC the proposed finish grades are within the acceptable standards for cut and fill operations. We understand that all sloped areas will have a maximum slope of 3=1 and that all existing grades at adjacent property lines will be maintained. We conclude, based upon. the existing condition of the site that the cut and fill operations that are proposed will noC create any additional hazards to the adjacent property, since at the present time there is an existing steep bank ~ue to the earlier cut and fill operation. Therefore, the proposed operation will be beneficial in reducing the ~azards at the existing site. If we can be of additional assistance, please call. Sincerely, October 19, 1978 _-. ~.'~ .......... .co,. % SANE. R, JACK , $ALLINGER & NICHOLS ATTORNEYS A~lO COUNSELORS AT LAW DALLAS ,TEXAS September 29, 1978 R. Ir. L. SANER (IBTI J~O. C. e'AN(rlq (IBT,e-lgAB) Mr. Jim EUum : City Administrator P. O. Box 4?8 .. Coppe]l, Texas 75019 Dear Jim: Re: Zoning Opinion You have asked me to give you an opinion concerning a specific fact situation involving a zoning question. The facts I am to consider a~e as follows: A citizen, who is also a member of the City Council, owns a tract of land, a small portion of which is zoned commercial and the remainder zoned residential. The property is heavily pitted as a result of a sand and gravel mining operation which took place many years ago and prior to the present ownership. The owner states that the high walls of the gravel pit pose a problem which affects the entire neighborhood and that the property cannot be put to residential use without first doing extensive dirt moving and leveling on the property. The owner proposes to commence this reclamation project which will involve the digging, moving and removal of sand and gravel. Most of the sand and gravel which will be removed at one point on the property will be replaced at other points on the property, so as to eventually level the property in a manner suitable for residential construction. However, a considerable quantity of the material to be removed will not be needed and the owner proposes to sell this excess material to help pay the cost of the overall reclamation project. The question presented is whether or not the owner will require a zoning change,' and if so, what type of zoning ehange would be required. If the property owner was not going to sell any of the sand and gravel removed from the property, there would be no question as to his right to aeeomplish his project 'without further zoning change. However, if it is determined that his operation is a commercial sand and gravel business, he would have to seek a zoning change as the mining of sand and gravel is prohibited in both commercial and residential districts. This is a question of fact which must be determined based upon all of the facts concerning the project. It is my understanding that the property owner has filed an application with the city requesting first that the city make a determination as to whether or not a zoning change is necessary, and if necessary, that he be granted a temporary Specific Use Permit which will allow the mining of sand and gravel on the property for a specific period of time after which the property would be rezoned to its original residential classification. Therefore, it is my opinion .that the Planning and Zoning Commission should first ,make a determinatio, n as to whether or not! unoer ~,~ ,aers oresented b~' the- applicant, the proposeo activity constitutes the mining of sand and graveI-suffieiem to require a zoning change. This determination should be handled as a part of the applicant's zoning change request and after proper public hearing as in the ease of a zoning change. If the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that a zoning change is not required, they would forward this recommendation to the City Council for a final determination as in' the ease of a regular zoning change. If the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that a zoning change is necessary, they can proceed to make their determination and recommendation tp' the council in the usual manner. After reviewing the zoning ordinance, I find that if a zoning change is required, the property would have to be given an "I-1" District Classification subject to a Specific Use Permit for sand and gravel excavation under Item 18 of Section 12-100 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. This Specific Use Permit could be given a time limit after which the city, on its own initiative, could rezone the property back to its original zoning classification. This back zoning of the property to its original classification would not take place automatically. The right to continue the Specific Use would automatically end, but it would require the usual public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council and the passage of an ordinance in order to reclassify the property from its "I-1" Classification to its original Residential Classification. This back zoning of the property could be initiated by the city without the request or joinder of the property owner. It is my understanding that if a zoning change is necessary, the owner has voluntarily agreed that he would place deed restrictions upon the property s~ that during the time the property is zoned "I-1", no other ~I-1" Use could be undertaken except the use granted by the Specific Use Permit. It is important that this offer to deed restrict the property come as a voluntary jester on the part of the owner. The reason for this is a very technical aspect of zoning law which stated basieally~ that "where a city negotiates for the placement of deed restrictions or requires deed restrictions as a condition to the granting of zoning, the zoning will be considered *contract zoning~ which might place a cloud on the validity of the zoning change,n In this instance, since the owner has already volunteered to place such deed restrictions on the property, the request could be handled in such a way so as to prohibit other "I-1" Classification Uses. The fact that the owner is a City Councilme on If you have any further questiorz, please give me a CalL Very truly .yours, · SANER, /J~CK, SALLINGE~& NICHOLS ~also just a~ . I never have as often as~! Him for this tons she gave is in our l°ng I with many e vocations~ rA wer~ spent Fy kind to us anent [rom u, and have ~ewards this ~o and began :ontinent on ith a host of ~)se we have h-om 12-1441 ! have mqueated the city of Goppell to allow me to reclaim land that is bound- ecl on thr~e sides by SF 12 residential. There is a g~avel pit on this properly at present that has left four seres wasteland. I want to r~. shape the land fo that all of the eleven sc~es wm drain properly abd add to the heauty of tim surrounding homes. I have propes*d to finance this project by sale of sand and gravel from the property while grading to a plan submitted to the city during a period to e~d D~c. 31, 1979. Some people have object- ed through a lmtition and other written "flyers' that ask, 'Do you want a gravel pJ~ in your nei~bo~hood~ ~,et'o all tr~ nd be ther~ to help keep thio out of ou~ neifhborhood." Beeauas ! do not want to nee a STave] pit in ou~ ne~hherhoed. X pie to be there and help me ~et the exbfing pit out. I oent ~ondition. rapid growth ar~ now t~ll- ink me to sell thio land to developer who can cover it with more boreas. If believe in beautifieatiou and open spaees, ff you are concerned with health, safety, and the welfa~ of citizens, allow me to re- tlaim this problem ma hefor~ mo~ houses are eonS. rueted and mote ehfld- ~n begin to play on this land. The work would be done with front-end Imders. No dragiines er washing opera- tions would be involved. Other development and eonstrOetion noises will he haa~d all around the pr~ perry during the period to end Dee. 31, This issue ~ come he- fere the next Planning and Zoning meeting on Oct. 1~, l~F/8 at ?:~0 p.m. at tim co~pell mgh seheol. I assure you that my intentions ate to improve and heautify this property so that on ,lan. 1, 1~0 we can all say it was a worthy t~is proi~rty. David Phillips 'TIGHTEN UP" ,.HELP YOIj:. in the n My 1~ haP. doff stumble play w~ ~housh In all bad ast~ maybe .J who w~ pesse~,p My. tb scope. ~ always b I sup~ endorsed don't car linebada Chicken.' A The next item on the Council agenda was a public hearing to consider .a zoning change request by David Phillips for a zoning change to include a specific use permit to sell sand and gravel for a period of approximately one year while grading per plan submitted with the application. Council- man Phillips stated that he would like to disqualify himself from the ..... Council and step down as a counctlmember during this presentation.y. Mr~:~. F.:~:.Phil)i'ps~then madeashort presentation on the request and stated tha~!:he '.: would like to see the project viewed as a reclamation project.'~ The hear- ing was then declared open to the public, and Mayor Burns asked those persons who wished to speak on the proposed change. They included Mr. Lee H_a.~ll~ .Mr. Bill JohnsQn, Mr. Chris Kellner, Hr. Geren Burton. The m~in ob- jection by these people were that they felt that a sand an~ gravel operation 'should not be permitted close to a residential area. The public hearing was then declared closed. Following discussion on this item, Mayor Pro Tem Brown moved 'that a zoning change request be.allowed for a zoning change from "2F-l" {Two Family Dwelling} and "C" (Commercial) to "2F-l" {Two Family Dwelling) and "C" (Commercial} with a specific use permit to sell sand and gravel for a period of approximately one (1} year which will expire Dec- ember 31, 1979. The specific use permit is to include the stipulations that a performance bond of $12,000 be submitted, that the grades are not to ex- ceed those that are on the grade map submitted with the application, that once excavation has started, a period of six months will be alldwed.for the actual excavation process, and that after December 31, 1979, there will be no reconsideration or renewal of this application; Councilman Brock seconded the motion which carried 3-1 with'Councilman Grant against and the mayor showing his approval. ,i. Councilman Phillips ~as then re-seated'~n the Council. Consideration of approval of the preliminary and final plat of the 5th Section of North Lake Woodlands was the next item on the agenda. Mr. Steve Parsons made this presentation and stated that they would increase the stabilization in the streets to correct the problems that'are being ex- perienced in the earlier sections. Following discussion on this item, Mayor Pro Tem Brown moved that this item be tab]ed until a report can be obtained from the developer on the stabilization as opposed to additional blacktop; Councilman White seconded and motion carried 4-D-1 with Council- man Grant abstaining and the mayor abstaining from showing either approval or disapproval. Citizens appearances by Mr. J. C. Thweatt to discuss the sewer rate charges for his mobile home park was the next item on the 'agenda. Mr. Thweatt was not in the audience, and the Council was advised by City Administrator Elium that Mr. Thweatt had been informed of the meeting and had stated that he would be present. Following discussion on this item, Councilman White moved that the request be denied and that Mr. Thweatt be required to pay -. the minimum of $7.85 per mobile home for his park; Councilman Brock second- ed and motion carried 4-0-1 with Mayor Pro Tem Brown abstaining and the mayor abstaining from showing either approval or disapproval. Council in- structed City Administrator Elium to inform Mr. Thweatt of the decision. Approval of final plat on Willowood Addition, Phase II was the'next item on the agenda. Mr. Mike Mitchell was present from Fox and Jacobs and made the presentation. City Administrator Elium stated that the pl~t is in compliance in all respects with the City codes. Following discussion, Councilman White moved that this plat be accepted as submitted; Councilman Brock seconded and.motion carried 2-1-2 with Councilman Grant against and TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD JOHN L BLAIR Clmrmm CHARLES R. JAYNES Vice Ch~irmn -' BILL STEWART, P. E. 8520 SHOAL CREEK BOULEVARD AUSTIN, TEXA~ 78758 512/451-5711 WILLIAM N. ALLAN JOE C. BRIDGEFARMER, P. E. FRED HARTMAN D. JACK KILIAN, M. D. FRANK H. LEWIS WILLIAM D. PARISH JEROME W. SORENSON, P. E. December 22, 1978 Mr. David Phillips Box 101 Coppe11, Texas 75819 Permit Requirements X'515 Sand and Gravel Plant Coppel 1, Dal 1 as County Dear Mr. Phi 11 t ps: This is in response to your letter received November 20, 1978, for your proposed reclamation project in Coppell, Texas. After evalua- tion of the information which you have furnished, we have determined that a permit to construct from this agency will not be necessary. The reason is that your proposed project will not involve the con- struction of a plant or facility to process the sand and gravel. Your interest and concern over air pollution is appreciated. If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Manuel Aguirre of our Permits Section. Sincerely, Louis R. Roberts, Ph.D., P.E., Director Permits and Source Evaluation Division CC: Mr. Melvin Lewis, Regional Supervisor, Fort Worth Dr. Allen M. Fain, Director, Dallas County Health Department, Dellas ,. ~The City With A Beautiful Future P. O, Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 .214 - 462 - 0022 Dece=ber 31, 1979 Hr. David Phillips 544 5. Coppell Road Coppell, TX 75019 RE: Excavation Permit on your property on Denton Tap Road Dear Mr. Phillips: In keeping with the direction of the Coppell City Council, I have reviewed the original data submitted to the City Council by you. I have also reviewed the data submitted after your time extension expired for the excavation on the referenced property. From an on site inspection and comparing the data as submitted, the City of Coppell finds that you are in full compliance of the permit as granted to you. As you recall your permit has expired and no further sale of any excavation on this property is permissible without further consent of the City Council. However, you may as a private land owner relocate or landscape your property in any manner which would not directly deter the normal use of abutting properties. Thank you very much for your cooperation and compliance in these matters and should you have any further questions regarding your permit, please contact my office as soon as possible. ~ truly yours, Vjames R. Elium, III City Admi ni strator JRE/be Mr. David Phillips, P. O. Box 478 Coppell. Texas 75019 214 -462-0022 Attached is a copy of Coppell's Ordinance 281. According to the ordinance your property must be mowed 150 feet from all property lines. It is understood that you have a problem of neighbors dumping upon your land causing you to be unable to mow the property. According to Ordinance 281 section 9-8-2 and g-8-3'it is your responsibility to remove the trash and mow the property 150 feet from the property lines. Mark Nisbett