Response - Opposition AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1333 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, N,W, 2100 FRANKLIN PLAZA
SUITE 400 A REGISTERED UMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 11 I CONGRESS AVENUE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS AUSTIN, TEXAS 76701
(202! 887-4000 1700 PACIFIC AVENUE (512) 499-6200
65 AVENUE LOUISE, P.a. NO. 7 SUITE 4100 1500 NATIONSBANK PLAZA
1050 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM DALLAS, TEXAS 75201-4618 300 CONVENT STREET
(011 ) 32-2-535.29.11 (214) 969-2800 SAN ANTONm, TEXAS 78205
65 EAST 55TH STREET TELEX 732324 {210) 270-0800
33RD FLOOR FAX (214) 969-4343 1900 PENNZOIL PLACE-SOUTH TOWER
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 711 LOUISIANA STREET
(212) 872-1000 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (214) 969-2793 {713) 220-5800
March 14, 1994
Via Hand Delivery_
Marsha Tunnell, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Coppell
255 Parkway Boulevard
Coppell, TX 75019
RE: Case #ZC-557(CH) (c.,,~, ~')
Our File No. 11659-0000
Dear Chairman Tunnell:
This firm represents the owner of 15.6002 acres of land in the City of Coppell, said land
being identified on the accompanying map and subject to the zoning case referenced above. This
letter is being forwarded to you as written opposition of the proposed rezoning pursuant to
Section 44-6 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Coppell, and Section 211.006 of the Texas
Local Government Code.
The subject property is currently zoned "MF-2" and is surrounded by a raikoad right-of-
way, a power line easement and major thoroughfare (MacArthur Blvd.) Currently, our client
has a plat application ~ed for this tract of land for the purpose of developing a multifamily
project. Because of the adjacent uses and frontage on MacArthur Blvd., a multifamily complex
is the most logical use of this land.
Rezoning of the subject property to deprive the owner the ability to develop a multi-
family complex is an arbitrary and unreasonable act that destroys our client's investment backed
expectations and amounts to a taking of its development rights without just compensation. The
land is quite suitable, and desirable, for such a development. There is no substantial relationship
between rezoning the subject tract and the health, safety and welfare of the City, nor is there
a substantial public need for such a rezoning. The private loss as a result of such a rezoning
AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P.
Ms. Marsha Tunnell
RE: Case #ZC-557(CH)
March 14, 1993
Page 2
significantly outweighs any public benefit because of the resulting irreparable damage to the
value of the property. Consequently, a rezoning of the subject tract to deprive our client of its
constitutionally protected right to develop a multifamily complex is arbitrary and unreasonable
and not supported by changed conditions.
We will be in attendance at the Planning and Zoning Commission heating on March 14,
1994 if you have any questions concerning the matters set forth herein.
Very truly yours,
William S. Dahlstrom
WSD/skm
Enclosure
Copies: Robert Voelker
Dave Brown
Steve Hare
PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORIZED PUBLIC HEARING Case No. ZC-557 (CH)
Location: Northwest Corner of Beltline Road and MacArthur Boulevard
Size: Approximately 15.5 acres
Owner: C.E.D. Construction
Maitland, Fl.
Existing Zoning: MF-2
Proposed Zoning: (O) Office on approximately 6.6 acres north of proposed extension of
Riverchase Drive on the west side of MacArthur Blvd.; (R) Retail on
approximately 8.9 acres south of the extension of Riverchase Drive on the
west side of MacArthur Blvd.
Master Plan: Shows Office uses north of Riverchase extension, retail and low density
residential south of the extension
Recommendation: "O", Office zoning north of Riverchase Drive extension, "R", Retail
zoning south of the extension
MF-I
Item 9