Loading...
Staff reply to Attor. proposal--e Ct .... FAX ADVICE SI~.ET PLEASE DELIVER THE FO~ P&GES TO: IIUl~l~ OF P&GES (II~'LODIIR; (X}~ER $1iEET:) / i f S~NT BY:CARRINGTON COLEMA ; 4-15-94 9:iSAM ; 1ll41 ,Il, t,-.1Cl. Ji CA~ING?ON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN & BLUM£ A ~OIIT~ED LIMIT~"D /IAIILITY ~N[~HI~ SUIT& I~00 T~. tel4) 111-3000 -) 214 :393 0948;# JL~iLAPR t 51994 April 15, 1~24 8~-3032 N, nclmed for your review and comment i~ my initial draft of requirements for the propoMd Fl) zoninl of the landscape and buffer strips out of the NCH Corporation property. Within the emitem of this !~, tract I would be ,, 30 foot b~ strip on the boedmr of the ~ property and the "Loch Lane" residential property and a $0 foot ~ on thc Ixmlnr of the NCH Corpnration property zoned MF-2 (beret on the propeMd r~xmtl~ma~n) Glon~ Coppell Road, tract 2 would be a 50 foot buffer zone alonI the border of tits NC~ Corporation property proposed to be rezoned as L-:I along Coppell Road, the prQperty described on F..xAu"oit B would be all of tile property to be zoned m MF-2 und~ the proposed rezoning, and the property to be designated on F..xl~it C would bm that property now zoned as M'F-2 to be rezoned al L-1 under the I understand that you will provide thc cnacting language to go w~th these p, opolld nautctioat I would appreciate seeing a draft of the complete form of the ~ ~ m fbi lilt pl.n~ ~d ~O~'~g meetin~ SENT BY:CARRINGTON COLEMA 4-15-94 g:lSAM 214 393 0948;# .f Aptl 1.% 1OM Pup2 copy of tl~ letter, I _am encloaing a copy of these requirements to Pete Smith. After you hav~ h~d a chancc to revicw the proposed development requ/remen~ I would apl~fechte h~g whether they would be acceptable f~'om the standpoint of the city staff recommenda~ concerning both the PD zoning and the related reconvert of th~ MF-2 and IA ~ Thank you for your comideration. David O, Drumm DOD. kn Fmdoeure cc:. Don ]doulton (MncL Curtis Youn~ (w/end.) Pete Smith Via Reeular l~fafl Via Re~laf Marl Via Fax and Reeular Mail ~ DEVBIZ)PMENT DISTRICT NO. CIO ~E ~ DURING ~ TIME PERIODS INDI~~ HERE]N) 1. No bulid~ or structure shall be erected except for sotid masonry walls and related landm~pe ~ents as shown on the Detail Site Plan attached hereto as 2, No dt4vunm~ will be eomtructed across either Tract 1 or Tract 2 provldfn~ ar,~ms ~ tl~ ~ property descn~oed on ~du~oits B and C hereto to Coppell Road other than ~ aemmm*ble for emergency purposes only, as may be required by the City of Cogpmll in eonnmc6mi with the development of the adjoinin~ property. 3. At s~teh ~ as ~ bufldin~ permit shall be Issued for erection of a butldin~ or stru~u~e on the m~mment land described on ~th~it B attached, the owner of Tract 1 shall bm rmq~ to oon~trt~t the solid masonry wall and related landscapinB improvements lomt~ o~ Tract ! as s~town on the Detail Site Plan attached as ~.xhibit A prior to the i#uanm o~ a 0m't~ o~ occupancy in connection with Such bufldin~ permit. The City of C~ppeli shall lmvm the x~ht to miforce such requirement by an injunction action, without pt*qjudkm to or ll~ of any other relief the City of ~ may have, 4. At su~t ~ as any buildin~ permit shall be issued for erection of a bufldin~ or wtrueture on the m~jmm~nt land des~t'bed on ~...~l*bit C attached, the owner of Tra~ 2 shall be rmquirmd to ~mmtrt~*t the solid masonry wall and related lendscapin~ fmprovemm~ts loomtmd on Tl~-t 2 mm altovm on the attached Detail Site Plan prior to the issuance omrti~tm of oom3~ in eonn~'tion with such 5ufldin~ permit. The (~ o~ ~oppell droll ~I~NT BY:CARRINGTON COLEMA 4-1S-g4 9: 19AM ~c~48; # have the ri~t to enlonm such Z~luir~ment by an injunction action, without prejuCHee to or limim~ of any otber rMimf the City of Coppell may have. $. Tbe abovm requirements shall apply with respect to Tract 2, effective from the time tbe ad~klntn~ karl ~kscrl~d on F. attu'bit C hereto shall be zoned *~,1" by the City of ~ ~ shall continu~ in effect until such time as the land described on Exhibit C or ~ portioa glm'eo~ ~ be, without the consent of its then curr~nt owner, rezoned to any dmsi~mtton otber than LI, at which time the above restriction shall cease to apply to Tract il ~ na!y tm~ pmmgtt~ in the L! Zonin~ District shall be perngtted with r~spcct to Tract 6. Tbs mbov~ r~luircments shall apply with respect to Tract 1, effective from the time tl~ adj~ land dmsm'It~d on P. xlu'bit B hereto shall be ~oned "MF-2* by the City of Coppmll and shall oontinue in effect until such time as thc land described on F..v,h~lt B or any portion thereof slmll be rezoned, without the consent of its then current owner, to a zoni~ d~i~llnt~n otlmr than MF.2, at which time the above rcstrictiorm shall ceasm to apply m Tract 1 and any u~ permfued in the Ml~-2 Zonin$ District shall be permitted with respect to Tract 1. 7. The ommmm of Tract I and Tract 2, from time to time, shall be responsiblo to main~ at their cma, tire landscapinlt improvements established within Tract 1 or Tract 2, u the ca~ may bm, ~ all irzi~tion improvements established within each such tract. ~ Tim ~ents to be constructed by the owners of Tract I and Tract 2 · ptusuam to ttm ptovislmms of Par~raphs 3 and 4 above are intended to be tn lieu of any '~.~-~ a~mants Mm~mt Tract 1, Tract 2, or the Ia,d descn])ed on F. zhfbits B and C~ for Im~ -~5~ s~t improvements to Coppell Road a~d Bethel Road and the City of Coppeli S~NT BY:CARRINGTON COLEMA : 4-1S-94 9:20AM ~ ~ 214 :~9:~ 0948,:# releases tl~ ownm~ o~ sunh land for any liability for subsequent asse#m~nta with respect to ~, No ~ permit may be issued with respect to any development of the land described on Exhibit ~ until the owner thereof has caused Freeport Parkway to be extended fi'om Bethel Road to ltMs~, Road and to be paved for at least half of its width as shown on the cunm~t Clt~ cd' ColtlmB Thorou~dttre Plan, Such requirement shall cease to be in effect if the pmpos~ ~ of this section of Pr~eport Parkway ns shown on th~ City of ~ ~ Piton is mlimlltated or substantially modified. · I~ear Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commissi~.~ / ~ j .'"~---/:'-i;/, /",' ' The Coppell 2000 Study says: ~ ~~ //, "The taxing entities unique to Coppell should make every effort to shilt'the revenue burden from the homeowners of Coppell" "The tax base of the City of Coppell and CISD should be expanded to include the retail and light industrial businesses with due reguard for the quality of life of the residents of Coppell." "(the corporate city tax rates for 1989) Coppell's city tax rate is $.56 per $100 of property valuation. This tax rate yeilds Coppell the 13th position out of 53 reporting cities ..... Coppoll is in the upper 30% of city tax rates." "Coppe11 should exhibit a favorable overall tax rate relative to other similarly situated cities and cities in the Metroplex gennerally. While geographic location and good schools have a positive influence on prospective homeowners and businesses, unreasonably high relative tax rates can have a negative influence. The subcommittee understands that the rates are determined by taxable value and budget requirements, but every effort should be made to keep the tax rate as low as possible to give The City of Coppell every advantage in attracting new homeowners, retail business, and industrial enterprises" What happened in the last 5 years is that this commercial and industrial (C&I) developement has not occurred. Very little C&I tax base has developed so the tax rates have evolved from .31 for city tax and .78 CISD tax in 1985 to .6895 for city tax and 1.545 for CISD tax in 1993. The city tax rate climbed 2 1/2 times and the CISD tax rate climbed 2 times in 8 years. Compare this to other cities- Coppell now has one of the highest tax rates and effective taxes on the homeowner. For a $100,000 house Coppell Farmers Branch Irving Carrollton $689.50 $352.00 $417.68 $462.64 none 20% 20% 20% homeowners exemption According to Coppell 2000 in the '87-'88 budget Coppell funded 64% of the city budget with Ad Valorum Tax. Coppell is a city funded primarily by property tax from homeowners. Commercial and industrial development will not occur soon in Coppell. In 1989 Coppell's tax rates were competitive. Now, they are extremely high. If you were a business wanting to be on the 1-35,635, orl 14 corridors, would Coppell be your first choice? Even with the city tax abatement policy, the -answers is probably not. Therefore the city must not allow any more property to develop that will be a tax liability and force existing homeowners to shoulder an even increasing burden. If taxes continue to rise, housing values wSll fall, adults without children will normove here or will be the first to move away, and businesses will never come. The Fiscal Impact By Existing Land Use and Depvelopment Study, prepared by Luis C. Costillo for the Coppell Economic development Board in December of 1992 noted a relative impact per acre ( cost compared to revenue ) of a -$1,658 per acre for high density. Therefore any high density or multifamily approved by the city Council will directly be raising the taxes of the homeowners of Coppell. The projected financial situation of the city, the refemced tax burden of the homeowners, and the projected growth of Coppell from previous master plans and the Coppell 200 Study have not materialized. All the glamorous plans for parks, a recreation center, tennis courts, swimming pools, etc. are still plans. Coppell is not a wealthy city nor are its homeowners. Most are middle class citizens, who moved here because it was quiet, safe, affordable, had good school system, and had a family oriented atmosphere. Two parcels ofland go before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council this month. The Adams Tract #ZC-555 (ch) currently zoned MF-2 and the 28 acres in zoning case ZC-559(ch) of NCH property, currently zoned MF-2. Please consider the following points concerning the Adams Tract: It is a beautiful piece of land with rolling hills and trees near Denton Creek. North of it was to be undeveloped flood plain by Denton Creek. South is to be SF-7. All the land a long the south Denton Creek is either park or single family development. The land does not border 121 and is set back a great distance from it. The rolling creek that hms through it would make a lovely area for homes. Beautiful lots like in Country Estates could be developed there. These lots sell in the $80,000-$110,000 range which should provide the property owner with a sizable profit when he develops it. Developed in this manner, the land would be a tax benefit to Coppell. Although the 1992~study showed the ( revenue/cost impact per acre ) to be -$162.00 per acre, the 1994 higher new home prices as well as creek and treed lot premiums would probably produce a positive revenue/cost ratio making single family a describable altemative for land use. This property if developed as na~e,~family will cost the other taxpayers (homeowners) $44,450.98 ($1658 per acre) per year. The tax collected on this 26.81 acres valued at $1,302,310.00 was $12.94 in 1993. When the land is developed, they will pay 5 years of tax ( $8979.43 per 1993 taxes, less than that previous years)- or approximately $40,000 .This is less than the homeowners will have to pay .the first year to make up for the negative (cost to revenue impact) of $44,450,98 that year and that first year and every year there atSer, Please do not do this to the voters and taxpayers who elected you. Please consider the following conceming the NCH tract: It is a flat prairie tract bounded by Ruby Road, Coppell Road, Loch Lane, and Bethel Road. The land to the north is residential. It is currently nice mobile home parks with lovely big trees and the Shadow Woods sudivision. The Oakbend subdivision is to the northwest. Northeast of this land is Wilson Elementary School and thc Devonshire subdivision. East of thc tract is thc Shadow Ridge subdivision, thc Big Ccader subdivision, thc Country Estates subdivision, thc Chautaugua subdivision, the Hunterwood subdivision, and sf-12 houses along Coppell Road and Kaye Street. South is residential along Loch Lane and then light industrial. Southeast is commercial along Coppcll Road and Bethel Road as well as the Historic District with its residential areas. This property if developed as multi-family will cost the other taxpayers (mostly homeowners) $46,424 per year. ( 28 acres x -$1,658 revenue/cost per acre.) The city taxes collected on the 28 acres were approximately $13.50 for 1993. NCH paid $71.00 on the total 141.32 acres. The owners claim the 141 acres will allbe developed and built out at the same time.They claim this would produce enough Light Industrial (LI) tax base to offset the high cost of the multi-family. However, ff you were a company trying to get backyour purchase price of approx. $2.5 million because you no longer wanted to move your company there, what would you do? Probably develope the 28 acres into apartments, get the cash out, graze cattle on the remaining 113 acres, pay about $60 per year in taxes to the city on the remaining 113 acres, and let the home owners of Coppell pay for the costs associated with multi-family. This option would be a viable option for NCH because with over 3,000 acres of LI, some of which fully developed with streets, utilities, etc., it does not appear that this parcel of land will develope as LI in the next few years. If the 28 acres developes as multi-family and the 113 acres remain undeveloped the tax implications to the city and home owner are as follows: The city will receive 5 years of back taxes of about $41,000 or less ($9377 for the 1993 rate) based on approximately a $1,360,000 land evaluation. This is less than the revenue loss to the city the 1st year of $46,424. This $46,424 or more per year :~., revenue/cost loss (based on -$1658 per acre for multi-family)will continue to be paid by the other tax payers of Coppell every year there after. Please do not do this to the voters and taxpayers who elected you. These multi-family acres not only cost the taxpayer yearly at -$1658 revenue/cost per acre but they will have a high negative impact on city water and sewer lines. Single family impact fees for water and sewage service cost $1 100 per ESU (equivalent service unit.), $650 + $450. Thc standard apartment according to thc ciD' would pay for 71 ESU's for water and 50 ESU's for sewage, $45,150 +$22,500 = ~;68,650. Single family at 3 to 4 houses per acre for 28 acres would generate approximately $110,000 in revenues to the city. Also multi-family water and sewer service could scverly strain the existing system. The city estimates single family and C & I to have 3.264 connectionS per acre and use 4.9 gallons per minute per acre based on 11 persons per acre. They estimate high density (apartments) to have 15.430 connections per acre and use 15.4 gallons per minute per acre at 52 persons an acre. Therefore the multi-family will use over 3 times the amount of water per acre than single family or C & I. Last summer when Dallas almost rationed Coppell's water should be an indication that a heavy drain on our water system could be disastrous. The sewage picture reflects the same problem. The data shows the average daily sewage flow in residential areas to be 100 gallons/per person/per day and in C & 1 25 gallons/per persons/per day. At 11 persons per acre for low density ( residential ) and C & I and 52 persons per acre for high density ( multi-family ) the sewage usage is 275 gallons for C & I, 1,100 gallons for single family and 5,200 gallons for multi-family per acre per day. Since the MUDD lines are at or near capacity and the sewage lift station on Mc Aurthur has had problems, the city should be careful not to stress its capacity. Many factors are involved in these zoning issues: 1. City goals and objectives as stated in Coppell 2000 and providing city services to citizens in an efficient and fiscally responsible m2rlner. 2. Protection of all property owners fights - -landowners and developers -home owners and their investment in their homes -commercial and industrial taxpayers -home builders selling new houses 3. Citizens quality of life In reguards to property owners, they must realize that time changes things and what they thought would happen or was projected to happen 10 or 5 years ago did not happen. The resession of the mid 1980's did not allow Coppell to develope as envisioned in the previous master zoning plans. The 300+ acres of developed C & I to bolster tax revenues and provide home owner tax relief did not happen. The outrageously high tax rates we have now will probably slow this developement further even with a tax abatement policy. The land owners have seen their property values increase over 2 1/2 times in the last ten years. ($.411 psfto $1.00 psfper the Dallas County Tax Appraisal District). Home owners in Coppell of 8 to 10 years, paficularly near these 2 tracts of land have seen their properties devalue between 20% to 30% (also per the Dallas County Appraisal District ).Homes in Hunterwood and the Villiages of Cottenwood Creek along Winding Hollow were affected by this greatly. The C & I taxpayers some of which have 5 year tax abatements need to be reassured their taxes won't be escalating causing them to abandon their investments in Coppell. We still have vacant shopping centers and empty commercial property with depressed tax valuations. Higher tax rates will only slow future developement. Homebuilders building all over Coppell are faced with informing prospective buyers that the City of Coppell has high taxes and that no homestead exemptions are given. The buyers with new home prices between $150,000 and $400,000 are looking at a staggering $1034.25 for a $150,000 home to $2758.00 for a $400,000 home per year in city taxes alone. School and county tax are added to this as well. The city does not need empty lots, it needs taxpaying home owners. In fairness to all parties, all these factors must be considered. The land owners who have paid almost nothing to the city in tax revenue have made approximately 2 and 1/2 times their value in 10 years ($.411 psfto $1.00 psf) on their investment. Nearby homeowners, in a similar time frame will still be showing a 20 % to 30% loss. Depressed house prices do not help our tax base either. Commercial and industrial developements should be assured by the city that the city w/Il not knowingly or directly raise their taxes unnecessarily. And lastly, homebuflders of homes which when bought w/ll generate tax revenue to the city should be encouraged. Placing apartments in the Villiages of Cottenwood Creek area will make these $150,000 to $250,000 homes harder to sell. All new home sales, in every part of Coppell are affected unfavorably by high city tax rates. If these don't sell the current home owner will not get any timely chance at relief. The quality of life for those citizens who elected you is also an important issue. Traffic, school overcrowding, and school taxes are also very important issues to consider. Breifly the data from the city ,reports, and commissioned works is as follows: 1. High density costs the city money and strains its services. 2. Other taxpayers (ie the home owner) end up paying a higher tax rate to susidize the costs assosiated with multi-family. 3. Land owners will have made a sizable profitof2 and 1/2 times the value since the early 1980's. 4. Home owners near these properties have had their property devalued 20% to 30% during this same period. 5. A commercial and industrial tax base to alleviate the home owners tax burden is not realistic in the near future. 6. Coppell has the highest city tax rate of all nearby cities and offers no homestead exemption. · 7.This high tax rate has begun hurting individuals sellirtg homes and new home builders. 8. Only you the city council can keep from placing the unnecessary burden of more multi-family on the home owner taxpayer. 9. They city does have the right to rezone land. Many other cities have recently done master plan rezoning. In conclusion, we would ask for you to review this data - all compiled from city records, studies, and commissions available at the city hall and library. These studies funded by tax dollars arc supposed to guide the city council and city government so quality of life can be preserved, city services can be maintaincd, and financially responsitiraiecisions can be made. The citizens and taxpayers will hold you responsible for your votes on this issue and they deserve your best effort in this matter.