Responses - Opposition REPLY FOR THE PLA~ING A~ ZONING C0gMI~$ I 99~
Consider Gh~2e in zonin~ from: MF- 1 ~d MF-2 to ~v~ aOdro~~Gt
elassifieation.-,ncl;ding, but ~ot limit~ to. SF-7. SF-9. SF-I~ ~~~r MF-1.
The City of Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission would li~e to receive your comments on
this case in order that they may make a better informed recommendation to the City Council.
If you desire to express an opinion, please complete this r~ply form and return it to the
following address by the date of the public hearing:
City of Coppell
Planning & Zoning Departmen~
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
This reply form in no way affects your rights to attend the pub:
interested parties to attend and comment if they wish.
If you have any questions pertaining to the case, please call the l
at 462-0022.
ic heating and we encourage all
'lanning and Zoning Department
REPLY
( )
I am in favor of this plan.
(/)
I am opposed to this plan.
( )
I am undecided about this plan.
My comments are as follows:
Signature:
Address:
Phone #:
REPLY FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONINGi COMMISSION
Consider chan£e in zoning from: MF-1 and MF-2 to any appropriate zonine district
classification, including, but not limited to. SF-?. $F-9. SF-12 SF-18. SF-ED. and/or MF-I.
The City of Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission would lil :e to receive your comments on
this case in order that they may make a better informed recom nend l~,m~the City Council.
If you desire to express an opinion, please complete this re ply t ~)~e
following address by the date of the public hearing:
City of Copper
Planning & Zoning Department
P.O. Box 4.78
Coppell, Texas 75019
This repIy form in no way affects your rights to attend the public heating and we encourage all
interested parties to attend and comment if they wish. ,
If you have any questions pertaining to the case, pleas~ call the Planning and Zoning Department
at 462-0022.
REPLY
( )
I am in favor of this plan.
( X ) I am opposed to this plan,
( ) I am undecided about this plan.
My comments are as follows: iT TS THE OPINTON OF OUR
IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF OUR 12 ACRE TRACT, WHI
NEAR THE INTERSECTION WITH PARKWAY BEND~ THAT A DO~
OR gP-ED WOULD KIGNIPICANTLY WF. DIICE T~F. VM.II~ hV Oil
ON THE VALUE OF THE FROPERTY AND THIk'V IT IS IMPROF
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE AND CAN BE AN EXCELLENT
INDUSTRIAL AREA AND HIGHWAY 121 AND THE SINGLE-FAMI
SEE ATTACHED LETTER FROM APPRAISER.
Signature::
Address:
Phone #:
APPRAISERS AND OTHER OWNERS
~H IS LOCATED ON COPPELL ROAD
ZONING TO SF-9. SF-12. SF-18
~R TO REZONE. WE ALSO THINK
BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROPOSED
LY RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH.
U'WARREN (~AMIESON,' PRESID & CEO
BONHAM4 ~TE BAN~
502 N. CfNTER P.O. BOX 609 BONHAM, TEXAS
75418
(903) 582-2163
FJMMY'MARSHflLL g fl$$OC TEL:l-817-566-2456 Mar 11,94 14:34 No.O01 P,02
_ Tommy Marshall & Ass,o, clates
Match i ], 1994
Mr. Warren R. Jamteson
Cc£0
te Bank
nter Str~et
Bonham, Texas 75418-0609
Dear Mr. Jamieson:
We are responding to your inquiry regardln1
have on the value and maximal use of the 12.6
Road, It Js our opinion that a zoning c~
designation to a Ilngle-family zoning deslgnati~
on the property~ value and maximal use. Th
issue~ that resulted in thh statement.
Drainage required to he taken through part of'
urffe~ible for ~lngle-family subdivision develo
on the site is more feasible since the develop
smaller portion 0£ thc property. The portloj
area could be incorporated into the developn
multi-family use.
We located land sale~ of properties in the
propertle~ with intended multi.family and sil
differences for physical characteristics and lo
land ~clls for a higher price per unit in the m
The l~nd ~ the street from the property is
It is our oplnion that an apartment pro
commerdal properties permitted across thc
provide a buffez between conuuerdal uses and
family subdivisions) In the Immediate area,
Should thc zoning change to a single.family
7,000 SF would be more suitable on the sut
permitting le~s density such as the develop
the effect a zonl~ dumge would
a6 acres of vac,~t land on Coppell
rage from a multl.[smlly zoning
~n would have a tteg&tlve influence
e following paragraphs address the
.he site makes the gte economlezlly
~ment Multi4amlly development
:r can recognize I larger yield on a
~ of the site de.~gluited ~ drainage
eat plan as a greenbelt area with a
general market .a~. a. that involvt4
~gle-family subdivision uses. 'Once
:ation are con~igered, multi.family
Irket ares
zoned "HC", Highway Commercial,
pe~ty would be compatible with
street. An apartment u~e would
tho~ ofle~ demlty (such as single.
designation, a mlnlmum lot size of
]cct site ~an a ~r~g designation
nent of lots 9.000 SF and larger.
I'ONM~ ldRRSHALL 8, F:15S06 TEL:l-Si?-566-2486
Mar 11,94
14:~4
No .OOl P.O~
Discussion with single-family subdivision dtw~lopers who have eq~.deace in the
Copl~ll market suppo~ this st~t~me~t. ~ '
In concluaion, a zoning change from a muld-f~
l~amlly zontng .designation oF this specific site
the property, The required drainage area
difference in property value If the zoning
designation to a multi-family designation, b
from multi.family to single-family o¢cura, a a
lot aize o£ 7,000 SI:, as opposed to 9,000 SF,
Respec~dly Sub
nily zoning designation to a '~ngle-
would result in · reduced value of
on thc site creAte~ a Rgnl~cant
is changed from · slng~e-fexally
t the event that the zoning change
)ning dcdgnatlon with a tninLmum
would best sult the property.
nltted,
Scott A. C, amrxon
A~mdate Appraiser
~LANN[N(J ~ ZONING MEETIN(J: 3114/~4 COUNCIL MEETING; 4/17/~4
REPLY FOR TIlE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
("onsider ehanma in ~3nin~ from: MF-I and MF-2 to an appropfiam zonin~ dimtrict
classification, including,, but not limited to. SF-?. SF-9. SF-1 . SF-18. SF-ED. and/or MF-I,
The City of Coppeil Planning and Zoning Commission would I ke to re. ye yotlr e~rn .~ ~t$ on
this case m order that they may make a better informed moon imendaflon: .to'~,~ou'ncil.
If you desire to express an opinion, pi.ease, complete this r .~ply for~ rd return ]7( tO the
following address by the date of the public heating:
C,ty of Coppell
Planning & Zoning Departmen!
P.O. Box 478
COPpcll, Te~a~ 7~019
This reply form in ~t~ way affects your righti to attend the public heating and we efl¢ourage all
interested pa;ties to attend and comment if the), wish.
If you hav~ any questions p~rtaining to the ca.~, plea.~ call the
at 462-0022.
( )
I am in favor of thii plan.
I am opposed to this plan.
( )
I am undecided about this plan.
qanning and Zoning Department
My comments m ~ follows:
Signature:
Address:
Phone #:
AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1333 NEW HAMP~iHIRE AVENUE, N,W.
SUIT[ 400
WASHINGION, D.C. 20036
(202) 667-4000
65 AVENUE LOUISE, P.B. NO. 7
1050 BRUSSELS. BELGIUM
(Oll} 32-2-535.29.11
{212) 872-1000
A REGISTERED UM[TED MABIUTY PARTNERSHIP
INCLUDING FROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
1700 PACIFIC AVENUE
SUITE 4100
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201-4618
(214) 969-2800
TELEX 732324
FAX (214) 969-4343
March 14, 1994
2100 FRANKLIN PLAZA
1 I 1 CONGRESS AVENUE
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
(512) 499-6200
1500 NATIONSSANK PLAZA
300 CONVENT SlREET
SAN ANIONIO, TEXAS 78205
(210) 270-0800
1900 PENNZOIL PLACE-SOUTH TOWER
711 LOUISIANA STREET
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
(713) 220-5800
Via Hand Delivery
Marsha Tunnell, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Coppell
255 Parkway Boulevard
Coppell, TX 75019
Case #ZC-555(CH)
Our File No. 09999-8500
Dear Chairman Tunnell:
This firm represents John Adams, the owner of a 28 ac~e tract of land in the City of
Coppell, said tract being identified on the enclosed drawing and being 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 th~ City of Coppell, and Section
211.006 of the Texas Local Government Code.
The subject property is currently zoned "MF-2" and is adjacent to property zoned "HC"
and property zoned for multi-family uses. The owner has owqed this tract of land for over
twenty years. The proximity to highway commercial uses, State~ Highway 121 and the ability
for this tract to serve as a transitional use support multifamily u~es on this tract.
Rezoning of the subject property to deprive the owner the ability to develop a multi-
family complex is an arbitrary and unreasonable act that destroysbur client's investment backed
expectations and amounts to a taldng of its development rights w
nature of surrounding land supports the development of a multi
tract. Further, the land is quite suitable, and desirable, for sucl
substantial relationship between rezoning the subject tract and th,
the City, nor is there a substantial public need for such a rezonin
thoutjust compensation. The
~mily complex on the subject
a development. There is no
health, safety and welfare of
The private loss as a result
AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P.
Ms. Marsha Tunnell
RE: Case #ZC-555(CH)
March 14, 1993
Page 2
of such a rezoning significantly outweighs any public benefit becaOse of the resulting irreparable
damage to the value of the property. Consequently, a rezoning~f the subject tract to deprive
our client of his constitutionally protected right to develop a mtiltifamily complex is arbitrary
and unreasonable and not supported by changed conditions.
We will be in attendance at the Planning and Zoning Cor~mission hearing on March 14,
1994 if you have any questions concerning the matters set forth herein.
Very truly yoursi
William S. Dahlitrom
WSD/skm
Enclosure
Copies: John Adams
Gary Sanford
10.
28 Ac;es
~6.91'
COP~ELL
~ $ Phase
ROA~ Electric