The URL can be used to link to this page

Responses (Various/Petitions)PL&NN{NG &ZON[NG MEETING'. 3/14/04 COUNCIL MEET{NG' 4/{2/94 REPLY FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Consider change in zoning from: MF-2 and LI to any aoprooriate z0nim, district classification, including, but not limited to. SF-7. SF-9. SF--I~. SF--I§. S~SED~ and/or LI. -- The City of Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission would like 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 reply form and return it to the following address by the date of the public heating: City of Coppoll Z( -5~9(C, 14' ) Planning & Zoning Department P.O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 This reply 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, please call the Planning and Zoning Department at 462-0022. REPLY ( ~,. 5~ I am in favor of this plan. ( ) I am opposed to this plan. ( ) I am undecided about this plan. My comments are as follows: /. 7;'~ (J~DEff Signature: Address: 424 COZBY AVENUE COPPELL, TEXAS 7~019 (214) 393-0230 June27, 1994 Council Member Candy Sheehan CITY OF COPPELL City Council Chambers Town Center 255 Parkway Blvd. Coppell, Texas 75019 Re: Cas~ # ZC-559 - tl~ NCH Cas~ Dear Council MemberSheelmn: Much has been said since February by myself and my neighbors in support of changing the zoning on this parcel to all LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. During the June 14th meeting I noticed some thln~n which I would appears that Mr. Norman Alexander is the ouly member of the cou appreciates the amount of ~ffott that baa been put forth in support of .~ you other council ra,~nbers will ~ the fllos of the P&Z Co~ undentaading of the AMOUNT ami VOLUME of input that was t sigr~es in support of ALL "LF'. I snsp~t that this volun~ of sign~ votes that some of you received in securing your positiom (~is like to bring to your attention. It ~cfl who perhaps really knows and LL "LI"! It is my hope that each of ~fissiou in order to obtain a clear ~ceived regarding this martex! For ~ coutaini~ approximately 800 utes may gxco~d__ the ~ nunfl~r of Rather than rehash what I and others have said and written before, I Would like you to carefully consider thc following: not the other way around! It is inne~eivabl~ to think that the Cit which would trigger uadue or ma~ive devclogmcn~ within thc ~ come back to r~t upon the citiT~ with~t fontal &xan~nt~ council?. Further, why isn't tbere a represeatafive of the City Co~ member of the CISD? Perhaps the Mayor will addre~ thi, i~ne a SD) exist to serve tho citizeos. Itis Council would make any decisions :hool system, which in turn, would coordination. Why isn't there a advisory member of the city neil sitting as a non-voting advisory 1SD Inc. It appears that t~vo divisiouz of tho san~ company are a~Jng a bit too independently, and the .,hca?,of on~,,,division shrugs his should~s ~md says I didn't raise ,yohr ~ - they did! Tbe problem is that ~ney were forced to raise taxes because of actions taken byimcmbers of thc other division. The result is - the ~itizem pay more · I believe much has been said about eve~youe's rights! The problem is lhat I have not heard the words "Property rights" cross the iip~ of any city council member. It is your responsibility to grow this city in such a way that no develope~ {os property owner} will create ~dra~ {cost} on city government or services which are not off set by the taxes genea-at__~_ by the increa~ in the tax base attributed to his or her development or property. The development of any parcel should do no harm to any other parcel! Coppell City Council, June 27, 1994, Pa~e 2. By this I mean that your actions should not trigger dispropotfioua~ taxes upon others, or worse yet, a decrease in the value of ano~r's propetx~y. In addition to free public educatioo and much sports spending, ~w rights clamor for entry into our city: the right to have bike paths, jogging paths, walk~ p~ths, parks, library buildings with playground equipment, library books, public pools, and lighted ~aseball fields. These rights do not merely ask for a place of their own; they lay claim wholly or pa~y to the place now held by the right of private property. I urge you and your colleagues on the Council to (A) ,s~im,ulat~ city growth in ways which do not continually increase total taxes as a perceatage of assessed value;land (B) do not continue to crode thc rights of private property from our c~ti~e~s. I fccl certain that n~of you would choose to livc in a count~ which holds property rights in low esteem, bee~o~c without property rights, you surely can not have civil rights. It is the basis of our original system. As a case in point, I draw your attention to the new bulk postal gueility. A review of the activities of thc police departn~nt would sugg~t that perhaps Coppeil would have been better off without such a developme~. This is mentioned merely as an example of what I am Uying to say. What was the "Cost-Bcmfit" to the City - projected yrs. acme!? Perhaps ff a developer wishes to grow the city in some way which takes more than it gives to the city, that impact fce~ could become a greater pa~ of the proce~. Wh~ can't there he a Schoul lmpact Fee, such tl~ if 500 apartments were built, that the builder esc~ funds which would offset the communities need to build more schools, at expen~ in excess ~f the tax revenue g~me~t_,~_ by the · It appears that perhaps the council speads too much time looking inside their organization ~ back rather than outside the orgas6-mion and ~. W~I it rely ne~sary to take up t~e council s time and thc public's time with a discussion of white brick or the bk~buster signagc? Pcrhaps the sign ordinance should bc more forward looking ami "business fricadly'l!!! In closing, I ask that you support the recommerui~6ou of the P,g'~ Cc~nmittee and rczonc all of thc subject property as "LI". Thank you for your time and considcratiou. Sincerely, P~aul E. Grinaglr~/ Homeow~r April 20, 1994 Ms. Marsha Tunnell, Chairperson Planning and Zoning Commission % Mr. Gary Seib, Director of Planning City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Blvd. coppell, Texas 75019 Dear Ms. Tunnell: We are homeowners of Devonshire and live~at %20 Halifax Drive. We very strongly support the r~-zoning request of the ~0 acre tract of land located on the west sxde of Coppel!Road and south of Ruby Road from M¥-2 to L1. We are and have been very much concernediabout the impact o~ a multi-family zone on the west side of Coppe~l Rd as it wil% have an extremely negative impact on traffic going to and comxng from Wilson Elementary school. Needless to say, an MF-2 zone will also pla~e a heavy burden on our school sys=em eventually, and will cause a ~considerable strain in the quality of education our children will lreceive. We believe that the best possible use Of this land is Light Industrial and we strongly urge you to re-zOne it from MF-2 to L1. We appreciate the time you make on our beh41f. Yours Sincerely, Rafael & Julie Cavanna cc: Mr. Gary Seib, Director of Planning F~EL~T7 i ~14 830 ?906 TEL;i-214-850-?906 19'94 10:05 No,O02 P,O~. April lg, 1994 Gary Sieb Director of Planning 255 Parkway Coppell, TX 75019 Dear Mr. Slab, We are writing with regard to the proposed mzoning of the tract of land south of Ruby Road and west of Coppell Road. We support the proposal v~hich would rezone the land from multi-fatally to light industrial. This tract of land is in a precarious position in that it Is dlrectl~ down the street from an elementary school. This means that if a multi-family compleX( is developed in that area, Coppell Road will become heavily trafficked. This poses a g~at potential hazard to the children that walk to the Wilson Elementary School. Coppel{ Road would also be the main artery between this multi-family complex and the high ~cilool--which puts an even more hazardous situation in motion, in that you would have (~hildren walking and young (possibly fast and/or careless) drivers on the same road at ti)e same times of day. Additionally, we cannot understand how it could be preferable to locate any residential development west of Denton Tap that far south in relation t~the proposed new runway, If that area is not desirebte for single family, I would questioN what type of multi-family complex would be attracted to it. Use of the land as it is ~urrentiy zoned would jeopardize the of life for many of your citizens. Also, a multi-family develo~ the water/sewer system, which we understand is already ex not to mention the impact on the roads due to increased trel We would urge you to support rezoning of this land fi'om mi as this would be in the best interest of the majority of cifize~ property value and quality merit would put a strain on )erLencing capacity revels, ftc. Iff-family to light industrial, yOU so diligently serve. Thank you for your eamest consideration of this matter. Plqase share this iettar with the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sincerely, Phllllp and Sharon Taylor 138 Wlndham Cr, ~PR-20-94 ~ED 12:43 April 19, 1994 Ms. Marsha Tunnel, chairperson Planning and Zoning Commission city Of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Blvd. coppe11, TX. 75019 Dear Ms. Tunnel: Thank you for the opportunity to express o concerns regarding the re-zoning of the 30 land which is located on the wemt side of of Ruby Road. We request that this proper consideration be re-zoned to Light Industr Currently this property is zoned as Multi- careful consideration of the different opt feel that if we were to place 600 apartme£ location, as planned, it would be a negat] traffic on. Coppell Road, particularly at ~ at the beginning and ending of the school from the new DFW Runway (under constructi¢ inhospitable environment for t/la resident~ development west of Coppell Road and sout~ The addition of these apartments will res~ ar support and acre tract of ~oppell Road south =y currently under ial. Family. After ions available we t units at this ye impact on /lson Elementary day. The noise n) will create an of any of Ruby Road. It in approximately 200 more students at Wilson Elementary, creating an im/mediate need for new school construction, which Coppell can not afford, as well as ~ large scale disruption of the existing attendance bou;.dariss. Lastly, the need for economic development is critical in coppell. Light Industrial development is the best .ossible uss of this land. Again we appreciate the opportunity Jo express 0u~ concerns and offer to you our recommendation in th9 re-zoning of- this property to Light Industrial. uavid & Sheri Olson Devonshire Subdivision 150 Hartford Circle Coppell, TX. 75019 cc: Mr. Gary seib, Director of Planning ~PR i9 '94 ~:52 PHGE.UU~ April 19, 199,t CHARLES E. STURGES 132 NEWPORT DRIVE COPPELL, TEXAS 75019 Ms. Mar~ha Tunn¢ll, Chairperson Planning and Zoning Commission 9b Mr. Gary Slob, Director of Planning City of Copp~ll, Texas 255 Park'~ay Blvd. Copp~ll, Texas 75019 (ViA FAX9 Re: 30 acre MF.2 tract located west of Coppell Road and $ ruth of Ruby Road. Dear Ms. Tunncll: I strongly encourage you and your fellow Comm!ssioners to vo. te for the rezgning of thi~ tract of land from MF-2 to LI (Light Industrml). I make mis reoommendation on my own behalf and in the name of the Devonshire Homeowners Association. Conditions have substantially changed in the years since thc land in question was ori$inally zoned Ml:-2 and acquired by its current owner: I~CH Corporation. In fact those conditions are so dramatically changed and changing sO as to warrant ~zoning the land~ even over the possible objections of the owner. In supllort of my recommendation to rezone this land I offer the following reasons; 1) Overflight noise from .D. FW Runway 16/34, when it is c,mpleted in .1997: ne.g~. _~s. any possibility of rmidentml use of land located west of Coppell Rono ano soum ~n Ruby Road. The overflight traffic noise will render this property inhospitable for either single family or multi-family residents. 2) A 600 unit apartment development at the intersection of Coppell Road and B. eth~! Road will generate peak traffic volumes which will overwhelm the cun'~nt or projcc~a capacity o(either road. The traffic generated by parents .d~.pping off students at. W.H. Wilson Elementary, compounded by apartment dwelling htgh school studgnts .driving north on Coppell Road to Coppell High School, will escalate an annoying $1tuauon to a dangerous one. 3) C.I.S.D. officials estimate that a 600 unit apartment development at this location..v. '.all. add approximately 200 students to the population at Wilson.Elem¢.mary, which is vnthm 75 students of its capacity now. C.LS.D. will be forced to tmmediately construct a new ¢lcn~ntary school. This will be followed by a disruptive shift of elementary school atlvndance boundaries for several hundred current C.I.S.D. elementary school staclents. h is prudent of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners to take these factors into account as they deliberate thc best use of this land in conjunction with the lawfully mandated revision to the Master Plan of Development for the City of COppell. APR 19 ~94 9:53 PAGE.003 ~ tO MS. Turmoil Alii 18, 1994 lmm2 Lisht Industrial zoning for this tract of land is consistcnt with the zoning of thc adjoining la~d located west of Coppell Road and SOuth of Ruby l~pad (also o.w.ned by .N.C~I. C lion) By zoning this Iand LI, the City of Coppex~l will avoia thc inevlta0tc co~plaints ~ lawsuits which would be generated by futu.~re residents of ¢~thcr SF or MF d~velopments who found themselves living directly in the flightpath of Runway 16/34. Restfully, Charles £. Sturges President, D~onshi~ Homeowners Asodation cc: Mr Gary Sieb, A.I.C.P., Director of Planning TOTAL PAGE.003 ** 421 Cozby Coppell, Texas April 8, 1994 75019 Chairperson Marsha Tunnell Planning and Zoning Commmission Town Center 235 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019 RE: Zoning Case #ZC-559(CH) Dear Ms. Tunnell: I, as well as a few hundred others, at on March 24, 1994, related to the referenc~ know, the meeting became quite emotional owner, the citizens, and the P&Z commissi~ realized how uninformed I was to all the i when open discussion is closed, we are n. questions. I was disappointed that P&Z did what went into their thought process in mak2 considering the emotional state of understandable. I do know that you have t¢ positions - the owner, the citizens in the community at large, as well as potential us!ers of the property. tended the P&Z meeting d zoning case. As you rom all parties - the n. As I sat there, I ~sues. In that forum, )t allowed to ask any not attempt to explain .ng their decision, but ~he meeting, it is consider all parties' mmediate vacinity, the There have been numerous meetings, orggnized and spontaneous, of homeowners with legitimate questions. Ba~ed on these questions, we have attempted to find answers to these iquestions, for our benefit as well as yours. I would very muc~ like to thank City Planner Gary Sieb and his assistant, TaryoniBowman, Rick Foster of the Coppell Independent School District, ~nd Ken Griffin, City Engineer, for providing their time and a~swers to many of our questions. This letter is an attempt ko convey to you our findings to assist you in making your decis!ion on this matter. The subject property is !41.32 acres, generally bounded on the ncrth by Ruby Road, east by Coppell Road, an~ south by Bethel Road. There is a proposed extension of Freeport, running north from Betnei Road and curving slightly west to intersect Ruby Road where Ruby curves north. Approximately 28 acres of the property fronting Coppell Road is currently zoned MF 2. The iremaining 113 acres is zoned LI. In preparing the five year plan, the C~ty Planner, Gary Sieb, initially recommended that the MF 2 land ~e changed to various types of single family, with the MF 2 land bping moved to front the northeast side of the proposed Freeport extension. The remainder of the tract would remain LI. The owner objected to any single family designation. The owner has proposed a plan to move the MF$ land south, to begin across from commercially zoned property. 19 his proposal, the new MF 2 land would form an L shape configuration around the single family homes on Bethel Road, with the sout~ and east portions of / the MF 2 being bounded by Bethel and t~e Freeport extension, respectively. The remainder of the landlwould remain LI. In,' return for this zoning, the owner has agreed to a 50 foot buffer along Coppell Road and the single family ho~es on Bethel Road, and the only ingress and egress to his development would be the Freeport extension and Ruby Road. The 141 acres are broken down by the ~ax Appraisal District into four tracts, summarized as follows: Tr 7 34.67a Tr 8 1.00a Tr 9 75.93a Tr 30 29.7~a 141,32a x 43,560 = 6,155,899 sq. ~t. 1981 value per Tax Appraisal District: $2,i532,970 or $.411 psf 1992 value per Tax Appraisal District: $6,i155,900 or $1.00 psf The property is completely undeveloped. According to Ken Griffin, Coppell engineer, the extension ofl Freeport to Ruby Road would cost approximately $975,000, calculated as follows: $260 per ft (80%) paid by the developer x 3i, 000 ft = $780,000 $65 per ft (20%) paid by the city x 3,000 Ift = 195.000.. $975,000 Water and sewer would cost approximately $400 per foot, by the developer: paid $400 x 3,000 ft = $1,200,000 The cost of adding electricity to the development is unknown. The owner of the land is NCH Col Chemsearch). The company is based in Los Co by the Levy brothers. Sales for 1993 were assets were $467 million. p (formerly National Linas, and is 51% owned 680 million, and total The property was purchased in 1980i from Dallas Baptist Association, price unknown. However, it iis believed that the purchase price would be similar to the 19181 appraised value of approximately $2.5 mill.ion. The property wa~ purchased to relocate corporate headquarters, however, NCH was able to acquire adjacent land to their headquarters in Los Coligas, making the move unnecessary. The zoning at the time of purchase is unknown. From 1981 through 1983, the owner pa~d $66,142 in property taxes. In 1984, NCH acquired the "agricultural" use designation on the property, and for the past ten years, it has only paid $3,481 in property taxes. Currently, the~ property is used for grazing cattle. The subject property is located furtherlfrom the major traffic arteries, IH 635 and Hwy 121, than most ~f the LI property in Coppell, consisting of over 3,000 acres, i Furthermore, the LI property located along Freeport is fully 9eveloped with streets and utilities, as is the LI property a~ong Royal Lane. In addition, the subject must compete with thelLI land along Freeport between IH 635 and Hwy 114, which is also fully developed. Because of these factors, it seems highly unlikely that the subject LI property will be developed for many years. Based on the above, it appears tha~ the only potential immediate value to the developer is the M~2 land. This value, based on $2.50 psf, is approximately $3 million, or. approximately $500,000 greater than what the purchase pric~ is believed to be for the entire 141 acres owned by NCH. Should the MF 2 land be moved as ~equested by NCH, the developer would have the option of only extending Freeport through 1/2 of his tract to just service the multif~mily land. Under this scenario, it would be feasible for NCH to j~st sell the MF land to a multifamily developer, fully recouping hi~ investment. The MF 2 zoning designation allows 22 number of potential units is calculated as 28a x 22 = 616 units Estimated 10 units per building = 62 buil units per acre. The follows: Sings Currently, there are three apartment c~mplexes located within the City of Coppell, as follows: Town Creek - 192 units Town Lakes - 230 units Parks - 160 units 590 units These projects are located adjacent t9 one another, located at Moore and Parkway. The potential subject project would be comparable to these three put together. There is also an unnown number of unit~ in Valley Ranch whose children attend CISD. According to the new proposals of P&Z,i there are three other undeveloped MF 2 sites, in addition to the ~ubject tract, located in Coppell, described as follows: 1. 25 acres at Coppell Rd & Corporate Pa~k Blvd, located by Hwy 121. 25a x 22 = 550 units 2.70 acres on Spur 533, north of Andy B~own East Park 70a x 22 = 1,540 units 3. 80 acres east of MacArthur, between B~ltline and Riverchase Dr (Carrollton ISD) 80a x 22 units ~ 616 units In addition to the above, Gary Sieb i~dicated that the City is considering seeking rezoning on an unkngwn amount of LI land, located in the far northwest portion of thelcity by Hwy 121, to MF SCHOOLS The city currently owns a 10 acre tra~ of MacArthur and Samuel which will be used t~ school for the northeast portion of the cit The city also owns an 8 acre tract on be used to provide an elementary school for of the city. .~t at the intersection provide an elementary ~inyard Dr. which will the northwest portion 4 The city does not own any land to iservice the southwest portion of the city, where the subject iproperty is located. According to Rick Foster, CISD, it is pro~ected that Wilson and Pinkerton will be at full capacity by next year. According to Rick Foster, there are 25~ students currently in CISD from the Town Creek, Town Lakes, and parks Apartments. The ratio of students to units is calculated asl follows: 257 % 590 units = .436 children per unitl Using this ratio, the new project would provide the following number of new students: 616 units x .436 = 269 children The new project would require a new e%ementary school. estimated cost of adding a new school is a~ follows: Construction 10a of land at $1.00 psf $4,500,~00 435,~00 The $4,935,~00 or approx $5 million Last year, the Parks Apartments, a l~0.unit complex, paid $76,493 in school taxes or $478 per ~nlt. According to Councilperson Flo McFadden Stahly, single ifamily homeowners pay approximately 40% of the cost per student, ~hile commercial pays 60%. Apartment complexes pay 22% of the cost per student, calculated as follows: 616 units x $478 per unit = $294,448 269 students x $5,000 per student = $1~345,000 $294,448 % $1,345,000 = 21.9% 5 TRAFFIC Coppell Road is to remain a two lane ~oad. Plans for Bethel Road, going west to ~ast, Hwy 121 to Royal - Six lanes Royal to Freeport - Four lanes Freeport to Old Bethel School Rd - Two l~nes Old Bethel School Rd to Denton Tap - Fou~ lanes are as follows: The following are summaries of traffi~ studies, done city, of the number of vehicles over a 24 ~our period: BETHEL RD EW from 121 to Royal EW from Royal to Freeport EW from Freeport to Coppell Rd EW from Coppell Rd to Denton Tap 1/16/91 3,474 6/23/93 5,338 1/16/91 6,325 7/18/91 7,134 1/16/91 5,191 7/15/93 5,876 by the COPPELL RD NS from Sandy Lake to Bethel Rd 1/16/91 4,510 6/22/93 4,426 FREEPORT NS from Bethel to IH 635 3/16/90 2,653 6/24/93 2,224 There are no studies of traffic at pe~k periods. It is estimated that the new project ~ould add 1.5 autos per unit or an additional 900 vehicles. Theselvehicles would appear at a minimum of two times a day at the intersection of Freeport and 6 Bethel (based on commuting to work, and excluding trips to the grocery store, etc). According to Ken Griffin, City enginger, this intersection would require a traffic light. This lightiwould be located only 1,250 feet from the light at Coppell ~d and Bethel. This situation, along with the bottleneck create~ by Bethel going from four lanes to two lanes at Freeport, would cFeate a traffic problem similar to the intersection of Sandy Lake and Moore Rd at rush hour (EW study from Heartz to Moore down Sandy Lake showed 11,400 vehicles on 12/91). TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS Currently, the city excludes trucks carrying over two tons from traveling down Moore Road. The city also prohibits trucks carrying over two tons from traveling on any city roads, with the following exceptions: 1. Beltline Rd 2. Denton Tap 3. Bona fide point of origin, meaning ~he truck was loaded within the city 4. Bona fide point of destination, meaning the truck was unloaded within the city An illustration of 3 & 4 would be thel Minyards warehouse on Freeport. Any other ordinances prohibiting the Use of a specific road (ie Coppell Rd), would have to be passed!by the City Council. Because of the current commercial zoning on Coppell Road, such an ordinance would appear to be impractical. At the P&Z meeting on the subject pr,)perty, the P&Z seemed intrigued by the developer's offer to elimirate direct access onto Coppell Road. As a practical matter, with w]~ich both Gary Sieb and Ken Griffin concur, no 18 wheelers would Leave the LI land and travel down Coppell Road, a two lane road, and attempt to make a right turn onto Bethel to access Bethel andi Freeport. Any use of heavy duty trucks would necessitate the f%ll development of the Freeport extension for direct ingress and iegress to Freeport or Bethel. While it would be possible for lighter trucks to travel Coppell Road, there is nothing in the current offer which would prohibit leaving the Li development onta Ruby Road and then 7 traveling east to Coppell Road. Again, as a practical matter, any one using the LI land in this development i~ going to want and use access via Freeport. The P&Z also seemed intrigued by the ~eveloper's offer of a buffer zone. Currently, there is a naturallbuffer of trees, 10 to 15 feet in height, that separates the subjec~ property from Coppell Road. AIR TRAFFIC The proposed project will be directly!under the flight path of the new runway. I do not have the studi~s done on the effects of noise pollution; however, this projecT would be much m~re effected than the multifamily sites located ~n the northern portion of the city because of the altitude the pla~es will obtain by the time they get to the northern areas. Even still, persons buying homes in the northern portion of the city are required to sign a waiver that they will not sue because of the noise levels. Another consideration would be the location of a new elementary school to support the project. USERS OF THIS PROJECT This project would have no appeal to young singles or young married couples with no children. Grapevine, Valley Ranch, Los Colinas, and Vista Ridge provide much more tihan Coppell in the way of entertainment, ie restaurants, clubs, mogies, shopping, etc. While I do not have any figures, I dg not believe that an apartment complex is needed to service the work force of Coppell. The project does NOT serve the ma~or metroplex areas. Grapevine and HEB better serve Fort Worth. i Valley Ranch and Los Celinas better serve the Dallas and Los Colinas areas. The project could have some appeal t~ the elderly, as they could move to an area with a low crime rate.i It could also provide housing for the parents of many of our cltllzens. For all the above groups, the noise ~rom the airport would have a negative impact. In essence, the major drawing attract$on of this complex is for people with children to have them ~n the Coppell school district. The Coppell 2000 Survey indicated the f~llowing when asked what impact the public school system ~ad on their reason for living in Coppell (1 is lowest, 5 is highest): 1 2 3 4 5 Don't know Don'~ care 13% 6% 15% 18% 41% 3% ~% 100% This survey was made during 1988. C~nsidering the growing reputation of our school system (ie Pinker~on - exceptional), it is assumed that the school system now influences the tremendous growth in Coppell to an even greater degreel. As a general matter, multifamily community in other ways than just paying tax their disposable income in their commu! entertainment. However, Coppell is a un2 resident since 1984, I have seen many, manI Coppell, only to leave after a short periol ~evelopments serve a ~s. Most tenants spend .ity on shopping and que situation. As a ~ businesses come into i. Our lack of retail success is evidenced by the vacant shoppingicenters that have been in existence for many years. Unfortunately, Coppell residents simply do not shop Coppell, other than for ~taples, fast foods and professional services. Now that there has been the tremendoUS growth of shopping, movies, and restaurants in Grapevine and Vista Ridge, we are a city caught in the middle, with very little ~ope of any retail or commercial growth. COST OF CITY SERVICES The following information is taken fro~ the FISCAL IMPACT BY EXISTING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT study, i prepared by Luis C. Costillo for the Coppell Economic Development Board in December of !992. The effects on the General Fund by %xisting land use, per acre, is summarized as follows: 9 COST PER ~EVENUES IMPACT ACRES ACRE dER ACRE PER ACRE LOW Density 1,680 2,478 2,316 (162) Medium Density 125 3,023 1,838 (1,185) High Density 95.6 4,037 2,379 (1,658) Commercial 150 4,754 11,837 7,082 Light Ind 120 1,638 3,411 1,772 Public 350 2,746 829 (1,916) Parks 64 1,135 672 (463) Considering the average price now of new construction of single family homes since 1992, it is believed that low density now would have a positive impact on the General Fund. In fact, the audited financial statements for the City o~ Coppell as of 9/30/93 indicated that the City received approximately $650,000 more in revenues than had been budgeted for fiscal year 1993. As can be seen from the above, the highest drain on the city operations is from high density usage. The annual effect on the General Fund by developing the current acreage, using the 1992 figures, is as follows: 1. Subject property 2. Coppell & Corporate Dr 3. North of Andy Brown East Park 4. Beltline & Riverchase 28a 25 70 8O 203a x ($1,65S) = ($336,574) OTHER USES OF THE PROPERTY A. Light Industrial For the reasons stated earlier, it does not appear that this property could be developed as LI for many years. 10 B. Senior Citizens Retirement Community This idea was originally recommended in the Town Center Development Sub-Committee of the Coppell 20!00 Report, prepared in 1988. A retirement community could be a successful development for the following reasons: 1. Safety of Coppell would appeal to senior citizens. 2. Residents would be more likely to shop locally. 3. Would not put a burden on traffic. 4. Would provide nearby housing for the parents of our current citizens. 5. Could possibly work in conjunction wi~h Baylor Grapevine. 6. Could attract additional medical facilities and professional services. While it is recognized that the city cannot designate a special use in the MF 2 zoning, it would bel possible for the city ] to work with NCH, the Office on Aging, andi a potential developer of such a project to put the groups together. C. Park While it is realized that Andy Brown EAst Park is to provide many new baseball and soccer fields, will ithis be sufficient to handle a town of 40,000 people as projectedl by the year 2000? In addition, a recreation center couldI be built to serve the tremendous number of young people in our community. Finally, our town is in need of an outdoor swimming pool. Municipal Golf Course According to John Falwe!l, head pro at ~ancaster Municipal and formerly head pro at Indian Creek Municipal in Carrollton, a municipal golf course in Coppell would be a! "gold mine". Falwell stated that a 6,000 yard, par 70 "Executive 18" could be built, with a club house, on a 140 acre ~ract (the size of the NCH ~ract). Such a golf course would cos~ $4 to $5 m~on~ to 11 construct (the same cost as an elementary School), not including the land. A municipal golf course would charge f~es $10 to $15 cheaper than River Chase Golf Course, the differenc~ due to the lack of a management fee that River Chase pays to A~erican Golf Corp. At these reduced rates, the municipal golf ~ourse would generate approximately $1 million in revenues annually, with expenses being $500 to $600,000. In addition, the Lancaster Municipal provides jobs for 28 city employees. Cost and income are summarized as follows, based on a conservative approach: Construction Cost of Land from NCH $5 million 3 million $8 million Annual Revenues Annual Expenses Annual Net Income $1,000,000 600,000 $ 400,000 Backing out the cost of an elementar~ school which will no longer be needed, it would take 10 years t9 repay the additional $3 million of cost for the land, assuming aD interest rate of 5%, with an annual payment equal to the net income ($400,000) from the course. Once the golf course is paid for, theicourse would generate $400,000 of income yearly or $2,836 per acre. This figure is over $t,000 more per acre than the positive impa~t of Light Industrial as shown in the 12/92 study done by Luis iCastillo (See Cost of Services section). In addition to having a development that would directly serve the community as well as providing income f~r many years to come, Coppell would have an amenity which would attract future development of the LI or office type lan~. Finally~ it would enhance the value of the citizens' property! for resale. it is realized tha~ the City and the sqnoo! district work ou% of different funds and have different budgets, but the source of %hese funds only comes out of one pocket, the taxpayer's. 12 EFFECTS ON MARKET VALUE OF CURRENT PROPERTYI OWNERS It is impossible to quantify the effects on current property values. I can only speak to my current sitpation. I was the original purchaser of my home in Hunterwood in October of 1984. I paid $132,500 and added i$2,500 in landscaping, for a total of $135,000. At the time of my! purchase, Coppell was a small town of 7,000 people, and the only ~ervices available were a Stop & Go, the Dairy Queen, the strip sh~pping center at Sandy Lake & Moore, and the Coppell Family PractiCe. Last year, my property appraised at $10~,900. I just received my new statement valuing my property at $1%8,000. I do not know of any sales that justify this increase, b~t I assume the values have gone up for two reasons: 1) the ~xceptional rating of Pinkerton Elementary by the Texas EducatiOn Agency, and 2) the developments of Big Cedar and Country Estates. of the original owners on my street that I know about, three were moved in past years by their jobs, andi their homes were sold at substantial losses. One moved on his owb volition to the east side of Coppell last year, selling his home fat a substantial loss. Most of the original homeowners remain, ~ our eve as families grow, because many of us cannot afford to go tothe closing table with $20,000 out of pocket. Five others have or are in the process of moving, and are leasing their homes on Cozby, as they cannot afford to sell at a loss. Of these five, three have moved or are moving into Big Cedar or Country Estates. These five have been able to lease their homes easily at approximately $1,200 per month,I primarily because of Pinkerton. These tenants are excellent neighbors, maintaining the properties as well as the the original owners. A concern is that, if housing were t~ be made available at $400 to $800 per month, could the Cozby hom~s now being leased and will be leased in the future continue to drew rents of $1,200 per month? According %o Gary Sieb, the reason f~r rezoning the other seven MF tracts in Coppell was because they were near tc single family housing. Presumably, 5his was done te mainsain the property values of the current homeowners and protectltheir current standard of living. The citizens on the west side of Denton Tap hope you apply the same considerations to the subject property, and find answers ~c Lhe following ques5ions: 13 1. Will the CISD maintain its current standard of excellence? 2. Will traffic be a problem? 3. Will taxes become so high that the~~ cause a financial burden on the citizens, and significantlydecrease the number of potential buyers of homes?! 4. Will the "image" of the west side further decrease, causing a further decrease in our property values? I appreciate your time and effort in~ reading this lengthy letter. I frankly do not know the answers ~o the above questions, and I do not envy your job. I hope that! I have provided some factual information that will assist you in making a proper decision for all concerned. If you have any!questions of me, I can be reached at 748-6558, or voice mail at 922-7272. Sincerely yours, Randy M. Horton cc: Norman Alexander, P&Z Commission Raymond Hildebrand, P&Z Commission Don Meadow, P&Z Commission George Redford, P&Z Commission Carl Thompson, P&Z Commission Larry Wheeler, P&Z Commission Tom Morton, Mayor Jim Garrison, City Council Lanny Mayo, City Council Flo McFadden Stahly, City Council Nitch Reitman, City Council Ron Robertson, City Council Danny Watson, City Council Peyton Weaver, Cit~~ Council Gary Sieb, City Planner Ken Griffin, City Engineer Jim Witt, City Manager Pete Smith, City Attorney Rick Foster, CISD 14 /~I.II/I/II/E ~ ][J~II~IF. IJI~gTI~4F,~ JIl4194 COUNCIL MEE,Ti~ PLY FOR T.E PL^NNINO ^ND ZOmO COMM Consider change in zoning from: MF-2 and LI to any al~nroond~strlct classification, including, but not limited to, SF-7, SF-9, SF'-I~[,-SF--18, SF-ED7 2F-9,~-'-"'IvlF~; .... and/or LI. The City of Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission would like 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 reply form and return it to the following address by the date of the public hearing: City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Department P.O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 This reply form in no way affects your rights to attend the public hearing and we encourage all interested parties to attend and comment if they wish. If you have any questions pertaining to the case, please call the Planning and Zoning Department at 462-0022. 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: classification, including, but not limit~ to. SF-7, SF-9, SF-I~, SF-18, ~d/or LI. The City of Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission would like 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 reply form and return it to the following address by the date of the public heating: City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Department P.O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 reply form in no way affects your rights to attend the public hearing and we encourage all This interes~l parties to attend and comment if they wish. If you have any questions pertaining to the case, please call the planning and Zoning Department at 462-0022. 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 #: M~-~-~4 ~?:~4 FR~M TRaNSaMeRICA LIFE TO 3930948 P.O1 THOMAS W. RUTLEDGE, CLU Narch 23, 1994 Mr. Gary Seth D/rector, Pl&nniz~ & zoning FAX 393-0948 *l~O'i LBJ FREEWAY SUITE 250 ~ALLA$, TEXAS 75234-6048 Dear Gary: R~: Remoni~ for Light Industrial and MultiPamlly housi~ west of Coppell Rd. near Ruby!Rd. 1~ wife a~d two Sons moved to Coppell only 6 months ago 9fret. ring in ~ae~ D~lla~ for over 6 years an~ KesSler Park In Oa~ Cliff for my ~ntire life prior to th~. In bo~ cases pr?ps.try values 4iminishe~[ end schools.were highly affected (neggtlvely; ss a result of ~y multi-family dwellings beihg added in the So~e of tlae primary reasons we moved to. Coppel~.w~r?. sc~.~ols! neighborhoods, ami stability of hom~ prlge~. ~lt~..=ne =nreg~ o~ ~l~i-f~ily =~i~, ~11 three are lmpaccea. ~rcne~ore, ~e ex~lary etet~ of Pl~e~ton Ei~menta~ woul~ 9ertain~y ~ ~alie~ once ~ full lmp~c~ is f~lt. At 1~ ~ep?~, -. ~ Pi~ton wme t~ only school in ~e CISD to ~ain =RXs nigh level of ex=elle~e. ~y jeopardize ~is ra~i~ and the home value~ of ~ ~i~h~rho~ in one blow? Nobody wsnt! to p~y higher ~axes but I am wil~ing to pay ~ fair share. However, I am not willing to another i~c~ea~ in my o~n wallet. ~l~ l~ ~ecis~ly wna~ hm~ in a sitar%on like this one. Co,el4 neeo~ mor~ i~mtriel m~ ~all, not apa~ents or o~e~ mul~t f~lly h~i~. ~lie~ ~, Gary, ~xs is a.re~l ~h~t agd ~ have ~o~lly ~ t~ h~n as ~ hgme_ln tritely a~ It Is very easy =o proliferatio~ of aperients. These Duildlngs~w~e no= alrec=iy ne~ d~r ~t ~ ne%gh~rho~ school was ~nd~s,.~e~one ~e ar~ 1~. Until prope~y taxes ~an.De ~oiiec%~ ~rom _. a~nt ~11er~ in ~e s~e manner it is f~gm you.~ga I, =hen I will .d~ntly ~pose any mere apartments bemng bull= i~ my nelgltborhood. P~ea~e Gary, right now Coppell.is fixed. . don*t ~reak itl Welook forward to hearing of your oommis~ion~s decision soon. ~lnoerely, 329 Broc~ Str#t Btq Cedar Additien Co~11, TH 75019 TOTAL P. 01 The undersigned Coppell residents strongly support rezoni!ng of the property south of Ruby Road and west of Coppell Road from multi-family to li~ght industrial. NAME (PLS PRINT) SIGNATURE STREET ADDRESS [ / The undersigned Coppell residents strongly support rezonii~g of the property south of Ruby Road and west of Coppell Road from multi-family to light industrial. NAME (PLS PRINT) SIGNATU~/Ex i STREET ADDRESS ~ . .:, %/.':C:/ ::-- , . :,'? ,, -, ' The undersigned Coppell residents strongly support rezoniag of the property south of Ruby Road and west of Coppell Road from multi-family to light industrial. NAME (PLS PRINTL SlGNJ~TU~ // ///o STREET ADDRESS The undersigned Coppell residents strongly support rezonlng of the property south of Ruby Road and west of Coppell Road from multi-family t._~o light industrial. NAME (PLS PRINT) SIGNATURE STREET ADDRESS '~' ,n/,~ '/~ :, : ,, The undersigned Coppell residents strongly support rezoning of the property south of Ruby Road and west of Coppell Road from multi-family t._~o light industrial. NAME (PLS PRINT) SIGNATURE STREET ADDRESS The undersigned Coppell residents strongly support rezoniing of the property south of Ruby Road and west of Coppell Road from multi-family to light industrial. NAME (PLS PRINT) SIGNATURE STREET ADDRESS ~ . , x~ ' The undersigned Coppell residents strongly support rezoning of the property south of Ruby Road and west of Coppell Road from multi-family t._~o light industrial. NAME (PLS PRINT) SIGNATURE STREET ADDRESS , ~ ,, /, ~/ ~ _- t"i !i ~,,.,, ~< //~4 ,,, The undersigned Coppell residents strongly support rezon~ng of the property south of Ruby Road and west of Coppell Road from multi-family t.~o I~ght industrial. ! STREET ADDRESS NAME (PLS PRINT) SIGNATURE -~ -" ' g~_.-D~9 (ch') for ~lC *burden on ~mcre2sed homeow~ taxes ~tmffic 141.3 acres [owing reasons- 7o-0/? 5 '7. · ~' ~ ' ~'~ ...... - :~' .... ZC-559 (ch) for ~ · burdan on schools · i~creased homeowner taxes ADDRESS [3¸ *burden .on schools ~mcreased homeowner taxes ~tmffic *the Lncrease ~t'~;~ --,4~-- ADDRESS 15. . ~or~ng on any part of~¢ 141.3 ro£ercn¢¢,~ v]~ ~onmg ca.,~ ZC-559 (ch') for thc £o[lowm_~ i'~asona- *burden on schools *iqcreased homeowner taxes NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS IL. Iff. r~ferencad by zor&~ casa SC-559 (ch} ~or Se ~o~ow~ r6~oas- *burden on sch~;ols ~mcreased homeowner taxes ADDRESS referenced by zo~ ca,;c ZC-559 (oN) ~or fi~e fo~owhn~ rc~on;~- ~burdcn on schools ~mcr~ased homeowner taxes ~trnrSc *the mcrcasc ~.t N :.'d u, ,~DDREo~ ~DDRES;'~ NAME ~DDRESo 13. 15. v,- ~ ~,u!~b~T'.:i, on an',,: part, of the 1 referenced by zo,~ cas~ ZC-559 (eM for fine foRowMg *burden on schuols ~increased homeowner taxes ~tm~c ADDRESS '7. ~ I/~ o 15. ~¢z~rCn~¢~ by zo~a Cas~ ZC-559 (ch) for fi~ f~ow~g *burden on schools ~increased homeowner taxes ADDRESS th¸ rc2renc~d by zo,~ casa ZC-559 (ch) for hhe fo~ow~,g r~ons- *burden on schools 4increased homeowner [axes ADDRESS L rofer~nc~d by zo,~a ca,ia ZC-559 (ch') for ~ fo~owL~ r~ons- *burden on schoo[s *increased homeowner taxes ~tmffic '" :,_7 ADDRESS 15. /o ~burden On ~i9.creased homeo,~,mer taxes ~mcrensed bomeowper taxes ~trnl~c .... r~c~n~¢~ o~ ~o,~ ~as~ g~_.-~o9 (ch) for fi~e fo~owhug * ouroen on scnools ~mcreased homeowner taxes ADDRESS Theo Theodosiou 312 S. Coppell Rd- Coppell, TX 75019 Ms. Marcia Tunnell Chairperson Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Gary Seib Director of Planning City of Coppell 255 Parkway Blvd. Coppell, TX 75019 March 23, 1994 Dear Ms. Tunnell: I am wrting with regard to the proposed r~zoning of the land adjoining Ruby and Coppell Raods. I am fully in support of the change in zoning Srom MF-2 and 2F-9 to SF-7 north of Ruby Road and SF-7 or less desirably LI (if there were to be at least a 5~ foot setback With screening from Coppell Road with plantings and walls and n~ access to Coppell Road). Without these changes and with the addition of large numbers of multifamily housing units on this land, the entire nature of this part of Coppell would change. Currently it is a single family area with limited traffic except in the earlyimorning and in the late afternoon when it is slightly higher. The streets are safe for people to jog, walk dogs, ride bikes, and for children to cross. With the addition of high density ~ental housing, you would have greatly increased traffic, much higher congestion, and the presence of large numbers of people whosei commitment to the area is limited to the terms of a lease. The ~ew school has been built and already the classes are large. Were such a large number of new housing units to be built, the student:teacher ratio would be even worse, or there would bp a need for yet another new elementary school resulting in higher taxes. This area should be developed, but it shoul~ be developed in a manner consistent with nearby existing development and with development in Coppell in general. One of thS great attractions of Coppell has been the fact that there~ is a plan for its development, a vision of what we want Coppell to be like. So far the commitment seems to be to a community of p~edominantly single family homes with quality schools, a low crimel rateJ, attractive commercial areas, and parks. We have sieen some commercial development approve~ of which not all have keen in favor. We have seen some home devlopment in areas which ~eople questioned (Turkey Hill). We have not had everything we wished for in terms of parks. Our schools while maintaining high quality have been struggling with the effects of state legislation. Our taxes have inevitably gone up. Only our commitment to Coppell and to its future has remained constant. Allowing multifamily housing in the area in ~uestion will erode neighborhood spirit, reduce the quality ~of life in the neighborhood, endanger our children's live~ as they deal with higher traffic and busier streets, and for w~at? To meet the needs of a developer who is only interested inihis own agenda not that of the community. Developers have not, historically, been those who had the best interests of a communSty at heart. They have, however, consistently had THEIR OWN interests at heart. I believe, and hope I am right, that you and t~e other members of the Planning and Zoning Commission have the ~best interests of Coppell and its citizens at heart. Like y~u, we have made a long-term commitment to this community and to its future. Please make a decision that considers us first. Thank you for your attention and consideration~ Sincerely Theo Theodosiou concerning case #ZC-S59(ch), please change the zoning ~rom 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industhal area to SF-7 no.~ of Ruby Road (cun'ently 2F-9) and the remaining tract LI with a ~0' buffer on Coppell Road to the east, a 5(1' buffer no~h & around Loch Lane t~the south ( all the way to Bethel Road), and a 50' buftkr along Rub)~ Road to the north ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning)..~Itte Butler shpuld include an 8' masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No ace,s to the LI area will be via Copp¢II Road or Ruby Road. Tlfis should ~ffecfivly buffer LI & lh~ single thmily residenlial areas. z_,o~un~ ~ omm~s,~on mcctm£ ~F-9) ~d the remaining tract 1,I with a 50' buyer on Coppell Road :he e~t, a 50' butl~ no~h & around Loch l,ane to the sm.~lh ( att thc ~ay to B~hel P, oad), and a 50' butl~ along Cuby ¢ead to the no~h ~e ~ce of the SF-7 zomg). ~c Butlkr should include an 8' n~o~ w~, sidew~, ~d l~dscap~g. No accss~ to thc LI re'ca wffi )e ha Coppell Road or Ruby Road. ~fi~ should efl~ctivly buffer ~ single Pamity residenliat areas DIII~£ il'lC ,.~,~¢112 4, 1 ?? # pl.~nnm~ ,~nd Zomn~ e :'ommi.~,~ion mcctin,~ c0nceming case gz, C-559/ch), please change thc zoning t~om 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industrial area to SF-7 north of Rubv Road (currently 2F-9) and the remaining tract 1,1 with a 50' but'l~r on C'opp¢ll Road lo the east, a 50' butler north & around l,och t,ane t~ the '.m!h ~ ail thc way to Bethel Road), and a 50' bufl~ along Ruby ¢.oad to the north ( the distance of the SF-7 Zomg). Thc Butlkr should include an 8' masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscap/ng. No accs$ to thc LI zu'ca will be via Coppell Road or Ruby Road. Tlfi~ should ci/Tcctivlv I~uffcr Li & the single thmily residential arenas ~TH~EAT ROAD ~' 24~ 994 ~ ' -' ' ' · During thc ~ ,larch I Planning and Zomng I_ omm~ss~on mcehng conccnm~g case//~C-55~(ch), plcasc change thc zo~g 2F-9, MF-2 & Liaht Indush'ial area Io el -7 north of Ruby Road (currently 2 F-9') and lhc romainim~= h'ac113 ~vilh a 50' buffer on ("._x)ppcll, Road lo lhc casl, a 50' buflkr noT'Ih & around [,och l,ane to the south (' all way lo Bethel Road), and a 50' buffer along Rub~- Road to the ,' thc distance of the SF-7 Zoning). Tlnc Butlbr sl~ould Nclude an 8' masomy wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No ac~ss to ?c LI arca will bo via Coppdl Road or ltubx Road. 'I]fis shoukt elTectMy buffer 13 & concc~g case ~LC-55~(.ch), plcasc change the zo~g ~om 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industrial ~ea to SF-7 no~q~ of Ruby Road (cun'enfly 2F-9) and the remaining tract LI with a 50' buffer, lhc east, a 50' butler north & around Loch Lane t( way to Bethel Road), and a 50' butlkr along Ruby ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). lille BuIISr sh( masonry ~vall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No aces bc via Coppell Road or Ruby Road. Tlfis should the single Ihmily residenlial areas. >n Coppell Road to the south ( all the Road to the north ,uld include an 8' ~ to thc LI m'ea will :ffectivly buffer LI & ~THVEAT conce~g c~c ~ZC-559(ch). please change the zo~g from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Ind~td~ re'ca to SF-7 no~ of Ruby Road (cm'rcnfly 2F-9) ~d the remaining tract 1,[ wid~ a SO' bufl~ on the east, a 50' buflbr no~h & around l,och [,ane to the ~oulh ~ at] ~he way to B~hel Road), and a 50' bufl~ along Ruby P:~ad to thc north ( ~e ~st~ce of the SF-7 Zo~g). ~I~c Dutlbr shoPald include an m~o~ w~, sidew~, ~d l~dscapM8. No ace,S to thc LI re'ca w~ be via Copp¢ll Road or Rub~ Road. 'l]fi~ should eflbcdvlv bulT~r the single family resktentiat are~4s c0nce~g c~c ~ZC-SJ~(c~), plcasc c~g¢ th~ zO~g 2om zY-~, MF-2 & Light Indm~id ~ca to aP-7 no~ ofRub~' Ryad (currently 2F-9) ~d the remaining tract l,l with a 50 buyer t~n (oppcll Road the east, a 50' bufl~ noah & around Loch t,ane t~ the souih ~ all the way to B~hel Road), md a 50' butl~ along Ruby (~e ~ce of the SF-7 going). 2c Buflkr m~o~ w~, sidew~, ~d l~dscapMg. No accs2 ~ m Coppell Road or Ruby Road. ~fi~ should c the single Pamity residenliat areus hoad to the north Ad include an 8' to thc LI re'ca will Ycctivlv buffer Li & ///c-ff~.4/ Ir I/ D~t'hx~ the March 2zl, 1994 Platwdng and Zoning C~t)mmtsston' ' meeting' concerning case #ZC-559(ch), please change the zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industrial area to SF~7 no~h of Rub7 Road (cun-ently 2F-9) and the remaining tract LI with a 50' buffer oB Coppell Road lo the east, a 50' butler north & around Loch Lane to the south ( all the way to Bethel Road), y, nd a 50' butler along Ruby 1 (thc distance of the SF-7 7.omg). The Butter sho] masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No acess bc via Coppell Road or Ruby Road. Tlfis should e the single thmily residenlial areas. load to the north ald include an 8' to the LI area will t'ectivly buffer LI & Dm4r~g the March 24,199d Planriing and Zoning Commission meeting c0nceming case #ZC-559(ch), please change the zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industrial area to SF-7 north of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9) and the remaining tract LI with a 50' buffer c n C0ppell Road to the east, a 50' butter north & around Loch Lane to the south ( all the way to Bethel Road), and a 50' butt'er along Ruby ( thc distance of the SF-7 Zoning). *Flue Butl~r she masomy wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No acesa be via Coppell Road or Ruby Road. Tiffs should e the single lhmily residenlial areas. ~oad to the north ~ld include an 8' to the LI area will :Tecfivly buffer LI & concerning case #ZC-559(ch), please change the zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Induslfial area to SF-7 nmlh of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9) and the remaining tract LI with a 50' buffer i>n Coppell Road to the east, a 50' bull'er north & around Loch I,ane way to Bethel Road), and a 50' butlkr along Ruby ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). ~Ihc Bultbr masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No aces be via Coppell Road or Ruby Road. Tlfis should the single [hmily residenlial areas. , the south ( all the Road to the north ~uld include an 8' ~ to the LI area will '.ffectivly buffer LI & ~THWEAT During the March 24, 1994 P/nnmng nnd Zonmo Comm~mon meetm~ con¢cming case #ZC-559(¢h3, please change the Zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Induslfial area to SF~7 no~ of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9) and the remaining tract LI with a 50' buffer the east, a 50' buf[br no~h & around Loch Lane t( way to Bethel Road), and a 50' butler along Rub3, ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). 'Ilnc Buff'er sh~ masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No aces be via Copp¢ll Road or Ruby Road. Tltis should, the single Ihmily residenlial areas. :)n Coppell Road to lhe soulb ( all the Road to the north ~uld include an 8' to the LI area will Tectivly buffer LI & During the March 24~ 1994 Planning and 2;oning~ 3ommJssion mccling conccr~g case t/~C-559(ch), plcasc c~ango l~o zo~ng ~om 2F-9, MF-2 & Lighl lnduslrial area Io ~F-7 norlh of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9~ and lhc remaining lracl [,1 ~vith a 50' bul~r on L.oppell Road Io lhe easl, a 50' bull~r norlh & around l.och Lane 1~ lhe soulh ( all lhe way to Belhcl l~oad), and a 50' buffer along Ruby Road to the no~h , thc distanec of the S1,-7 Zoning). Thc butlbx shpuld Mclude an 8' masomy wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No aceSs to thc LI arca will he viaC.x)ppc~," Road o,' kul~>~ ' Road. ~Hfis should e flbclivly 1, uffc~' ' LI & Ibc single Ihmily rcsidenliM areas. ~ COPPELL I~urin~ lhe March 2~42 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting conceding caac//ZC-JJYfcI~), plcasc change tl~c zo~g from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industrial area 1o SF-7 north of Ruby Road (currently 2V-9') and thc remaining tracl l,l with a 50' l)tt~l' on Coppell Road lhe cast, a 50' bullbr nt)rlh & around l,och 1,ane to the soulh ( all way 1o Bclhcl Road), and a 50' bu/lkr along Ruby Road to the no~h (lhc distancc of thc SF-7 ZonNg). 'Ibc Bullbr should Mclude an 8' masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No accs8 to thc I,I arca will l)e via Coppcll Road or Rulw Road. ~llds should dlTeclivly buffer LI & 1he single Ibmily rcsidenliM arc~us. ,~TH~EAT RDAD ~ ~ c0nc~g c~c ~ZC-559/ch), please chan~e thc Zo~g ~om 2F-9, MF-2 & L~t Indu~m~ ~ca to ~ no~ofRub~ Road (currently ~ib~, "/~ ~ ' 2F-9) ~d the remaining tract l,I with a 50' buyer ~)n Coppcll Road the east, a 50' buffer north & around l.och l.ane t, way to Bethel Road), and a 50' buffer along P. uby ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). Thc Butlbr sh~ masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscap/ng. No aces be via Coppell Road or Ruby Road. 'llti,~ sh~mld the single famd residential areus the s{mth ~, all the ,W;ad to the north ~uld include an 8' to thc LI re'ca will :tTcctivlv buffer 13 & ,~TH~EAT ROAD concerning case #ZC-559(ch), plcas¢.change thc zoning ti'om 2 F-9, CMF-2 & L~ght Industrial area to SF-7 no~'q of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9) and the remaining tract I,l with a 50' buffer on ~ 'oppcll Road the east, a 50' butlh' north & around l,och t,ane ~o the south ¢ alt wayto B~hel P. oad), and a 50' bufl~ along P. uby ¢.,?ad to the no~h ( ~e ~smce of the SF-7 going). '~c Buffer ~hauld include an 8' m~o~ w~, hdew~k, ~d l~dscap~g. No accss to thc LI arca w~ be ha Coppell Road or Ruby Road. ]]fi~ sh~mld etl~ctivly buffer l,l the single ~amily res/dent/al areas ~, w ~ L'~ ~ ~ ~ITH~£AT ROAD c0nceag cae ~ZC-559(ch), please chage thc Zo~g ~om 2F-9, MF-2 & Light IndusM~ ~ea to SF-7 no~ of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9) ~d the remaining tract IX with a the east, a 50' butt~ north & around I.och I.ane t,} the south ( aH the way to B~hcl Road), and a 50' butt~ along P. uby]Evad to thc north ( ~e ~smce of the SF-7 Zomg). '~c Buyer 5h~ld mauac an m~o~ w~, sidew~, ~d l~dscap~g. No accs~ to thc LI re'ca be Ga Coppcll Road or Ruby Road. 'I~fi~ sh, mld ~t~ctivly bufi~r the single family residential areas ,~THWEAT ROAD ;.F /(' n rsc°ncc~g c~c ffZC-55~/ch), please ch~c thc 2o~g ~om 2F-9, ~ pi~,r~s MF-2 ~ L18ht lndusm~ ~'~a to ~F- ~ no~ oi ~u~y Ro~d (~u,'[cntly ~b~ r,'e ', ~ 2F-9) ~d the remaining tract lJ with a 50' buffer 6n (',q)pcll R~}ad lo the east, a 50' butt~ noflh & around ix>ch I,ane to[lbo s~,uih .: alt !he way to B~hel Road), and a 50' butt~ along Ruby p. oad to thc no~h ( ~e ~st~ce of the SF-7 Zomg). '~c Butter ~hohld include an ~' m~o~ w~, sidew~, ~d l~dscap~g. No accs4 to thc LI re'ca w~ be da Coppcll Road or Rub~ Road. qlfi> shoukt c~l~clivly hurler I,[ '~- the single ~hmJly residen6al areas ' ~ ~.~ (~ e ~ MF-2 & J.ighl hidusiiial ~uca i, '.4['-7 n~,~lh of Rub.~ Road (cuncnfly 2f:-9~ ~d the temaining tract 1 ~ t .t 50' buflkr onlt'oppcll Road the east, a 50' bufl~ noflh & around I,och {.ane ~o the s,,t.llh ~ .,~11 lhe ~y to B~thcl Road), and a 50' buflkr along [(uby P. %: distance of thc SF-?/onmg). Thc Bu~tkr shou .n,k$o~ wall, sidewalk, and l~dscap~g. No accss ~,;~d to thc north include an M' thc I.I m'~;a will 'N c0nceming case #ZC-559({¢h), please change the zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industrial area to SF-7 norfl~ of Ruby Road (¢un'ently 2F-9) and the remaining tract LI with a $0' buffer km Copp¢ll Road Io lhe east, a riO' buffer nollh & around Loch I.ane t~5 the south ( all the way to Bethel Road), and a 50' bu~t~r along Rub3t Road to the nm~h ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). The Burlier should include an 8' masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No ace,s to tl~¢ LI ama will b~ via Copp¢ll Road or Ruby Road. lifts should ~ff¢¢tivly buffer LI &. lh¢ singl~ I~mily residenlial areas. conccmg case ~ZC-559(ch), please change the zomg from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Induslfial m'ea to SF-7 nm~ of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9) and the remaining tract LI with a 50' buffer on Copp~ll Road lhe east, a 50' buffer no~h & around Loch Lane to the south ( all ~he way to Bethel Road), and a 50' buitkr along Ruby Road to thc no~Xh ( thc distance of the SF-7 Zomg). ~e Bufl}r should ~clude an 8' maso~ wa~, sidewalk, and landscap~g. No acess to ~c LI area wi~ b~ via Coppcll Road or Ruby Road. ~fis should ~ffectivly buffer LI the single Ihmily residenlial areas. During thc March ~4, t ))-1 Plannin~ and Zoning L ommmmon meefin8 conccm~g casc /lZC-559(ch), plcasc change thc zo~g from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light IndusH'ial arca lo SF-7 norlh of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9~ and lhc remaining tracl l,l with a 50' buffer on Coppcll Road to thc cast, a 50' bull~r norlh & around [,och l,ane 1o lhe soulh ( all lhe way to Bethcl Road), and a 50' buffer along Rub}' Road to the nm~h ( thc distancc of the SF-7 Zomg). 'Ibc Buttbr sllould Nclude an 8' masonry wall, sidewall:, and landscaping. No ac~ss to thc LI arca will he via Col*poll Road or Ruby Road. ~I~fis should efl~clivly buffer LI & thc stogie lim~ily residential areas. ,~TH~EAT ROAD CDPPELL'"ElilJ;~(~ LIN During the March 24, 1971 Planning and Zoning L'ommJssion concerning case//ZC-559(ch), please chang0 tl~0 zomg from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industrial area to SF-7 norlh of R~by Road (currenllv 2F-9) and lho remaining h'acl l,l wilh a 50' btlflg1' on Coppell Road lo lbo CilSJ, a 50' bullbr n~rlh & around [,och l,ane jo lhe south (' all lhe way to Bclhcl Road), and a 50' buttbr along Rub~' Rond to the no,lb ' thc distance of the SF-7 ZoNng). Thc ' ' ' ' ~ Butler sllould mclucle an 8' masonw wall, sidewall:, and la ~dscaping. No aceBs to thc LI arca ~vill bo via Coppcll Road or Ruby Road. ~Hfis should[el~cl~vly bullet LI ~h~ single liunily rcsklen al areas. 2 During the March 2'~, 1971 Planning and Zonin~ Commission meelin8 concctn~g case /[~C-557(c11), please change thc zo~g 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Indus(rial arca Io oF-7 nor(h of Ruby Road (cun'ently 2 F-9') and lhc remaining h'acl 1,1 with a 50' bufl~(' on Coppcll Road thc casl, a $0' bul" _ let non n & around [,och l,ane 1o lhe soulh (all way ~o Bcthcl Road), and a 50' buflbr along Rub~' Road to the north ( Ihc distancc of the SF-7 Zo~g). Thc I}uflkr sl{ould ~clude an 8' acq,,s to thc LI arca will · , masomT wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No · - bc via Coppcll Road or Ruby Road. llfis shoutdi elTeclivly bu£f~er 13 & Ibc single I:amily rcsidenli:d m'eus. COPPELL . LIH Duringth¢ March 24, 1994 Planning ~nd/~mng Commission mcc~in~ conccn~g c~e ~ZC-559(ch), please change thc zomg from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Indust~i~ re'ca to SF-7 nol~ of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9) ~md thC remaining tract l,l with a 50' buffer On Copp¢ll Road · e east, a 50' buft~ north &_ around l,och t,ane t~ the south ¢ alt thc waym B~hcl Road), and a 50' butlkr along Pmby ¢.ead to thc nogh ( ~e ~smce of the SF-7 going). ~c Buffer should include an 8' m~o~ w~, hdew~k, ~d l~dscap~g. No accs~ to thc LI re'ca w~ ~ ha Coppell Road or Rub; Road. 'lqfia should cltT¢ctivly bu~¢r Li the single family residential are~ ~TH~EAT ROAD Dung the March 2,4, 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting concerning case #ZC-559(ch), please change the zoning [rom 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Indusli'ial area to SF-7 norfla of Ruby Road (curl'enfly 2F-9) and the remaining tract LI with a 50' burlier on Coppell Road 1o the east, a 50' butler norlh &, around Loch I,ane tO the south ( all the way to Bethel Road), and a 50' bultkr along Rub>, Road to the no~th ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). The Bultkr should include an g' masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No aces~ to the LI area will bo via Coppcll Road or Ruby Road. Tiffs should, :ffectivly buffer LI &, lhe single I~mily residenliat areas. ~THWEAT During tho March 24, 1994 Plann'mg and Zoning Commission meeting concerning case #ZC-559(ch), please change the zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industrial area to SF-7 no,ih of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9) and the remaining tract LI with a 50' buffer Im Coppell Road to the east, a 50' butler no~h & around Loch Lane t{ way to Bethel Road), and a 50' bullkr along Ruby ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). 'It~e Buttbr sN masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No aces b¢ via Coppcll Road or Ruby Road. Tlfis should, the single Ihmily residenlial areas. , the south ( all the Road to the norlh ~uld include an 8' ~ t~ thc LI area will ,ffectivly buffer LI & During thc M~ch 24, 1994 Planning and : omng t['ommisston mccting concerning casc ~ZC-559(ch), plcase change thc zomg from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Indush'i~ m'ea to SF-7 nol~ of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9) ~d the remaining tract 1,1 with a 50' lmfi~r 9n ( ~oppcll Road · e east, a 50' bufi~ no~h & around I~och ~,ane ~6 ~he soulh ~ all the way to B~h¢l Road), and a 50' but}~ along P~ubv Eoad to thc no~h ( ~e ~smce of the SF-7 going). 'ibc Butlar ah~ m~o~ w~ hdew~, ~d l~dscapMg. No aces ~ ha Copp¢ll Road or Ruby Road. ~fi~ should the single Family residenlia} areas .uld include an 8' s to thc LI re'ca will ffectivlv buflkr Li & :,2 c3 ) 7/1 During thc March 24, l 9?4 Planning and ,',onmg ('ommission mccdng ,,~onoemg c~e ~ZC-559(ch), please change the zomg from 2F-9, MF-2 & L~gh~ Indusma ~'~a to aF-, no~ of Ruby Road ,,W~x/s) 2F-9) ~d the remaining tract 1,1 w'ill~ a 50' bufikr 4)n ~ '~,ppcll Road the east, a 50' butt~ north & around l,och t,ane t~ the south { all the way to Bethel Road), and a 50' bufl~ along P~uby ~rx~d to the north (~e ~s~ce of the SF-7 Zomg). '~c guttbr shquld mcludc an m~o~ w~, sidew~k, ~d l~dscapMg. No accs~ to thc LI re'ca be ha Coppcll Road or Rub* Road. 'l~fi~ sM,uld ¥1bctivly buffer the single Family resMentiat areas concerning case #ZC-559(ch), plcas¢ change thc zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industrial area to SF-7 north of Rub~' Road (currently 2F-9) and the remaining tract I,l with a 50' l~uffcr On &)ppcll Road to the east, a 50' buft~r north & around I,och [,one t,~ the s,~tHb ~, att the way to Bethel Road), and a 50' buffer along Rub}' P. ead to thc north ( the distance of the SF-7 going). Thc Butlar should include an 8' masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No accss to thc LI arco will be via Coppell Road or Ruby Road. ,Tlfi.~ sh{,uld clTcctivly buffer I~I & the single family resi(tenliat areas ,~TH~£AT ROAD con0 g ZC-5 9(chL ploase change 2omg ~om 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Ind~td~ ~'ea to SF-7 no~ of RUby Road (gurronfly 2F-9) ~d the r~maining tract 1,[ with a 50' buyer {m i %ppdl Road the east, a 50' bufl~ no, h & around {,och },ane t~ the ~outh ~ ail the way to B~hel Road), and a 50' buflkr along Rub}qP, oad to thb no~h (~e ~s~ce of the SF-7 Zomg). ~c Bu~br should include an 8' m~o~ w~, sidew~, ~d l~dscapNg. No accs~ to thc LI re'ca w~ be ~a Coppcll Road or RubF Road. ]]fi~ should ~tTcctivly buffer IA the single thmity residenlial areas I During the March 24, 1994 Planrtmg and/,orang t ~ommission meeting concerning case #7,C-559(¢h), please change thc zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industrial area to SF-7 north of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9) and the remaining tract I,l witl~ a $0' buffer im (%ppetl Road the east, a 50' buffer north & around I..och I.ane t( way to Bethel Road), and a 50' but~kr along P. uby ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). Thc ButI~:r sh( masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No accs be via Coppell Road or Ruby Road. ~fi.~ should the single family residential are~ ~ the smnh ( all the ¢.oad to the north uld include an 8' to thc LI re'ca will tTcctivlv huff'er LI & ~TH~EAT RDAD [' 24, " ' ' I)uring thc ~ larch 1974. Planning and 7oninF~._ ~ ( omm~ss~on mecling conccming ca:;c t[2;C 55')(ch), please chan~,¢ thc zoning l~om 2t~-~, MF-2 & Light Industrial arca 1o SF-7 north of R~ 2F-9) and file rcmaini~g Iracl 1.1 with a 50' bul~ lhc casl, a 50' bul~br norlh & around I.och l.ane way to }~elhcl Road), :md a 50' bull~r along Rub ( Ibc distancc of thc SF-7 Zoning). Thc Bullbr sl' masomy walt sidewall:, and landscaping. No acc ~t~c single ihmily rcsi(lemi;d areas, ,by Road (currently 'on Coppell Road to o the south ( all lhe ,' Road to the north ould/nclude an 8' ss to thc LI arca will effecllvly buffer 1.I & /--y.z:c '7. 7 got 'I Dufin£ thc Marc/~ 24. 1994 Pl3nnm~ and Zonin~ t)ommission mrcting 0onee~ e~r ~ZC-$~9(oh), please change thc z0~g from 2F-9, MF-2 ~ Light Ind~i~ ~ca to 3F-7 no~ of Ruby Ro~d (eurrcnfly 2F-9) ~d the remaining tract l,l w~th a 50' buffer 4n C~ppcll Road the east, a 50' buff~ no~h & around l..och t,ane t~ way to B~hcl Road), and a 50' buff~ along Ruby ( ~e ~ce of the SF-7 Zo~g). ~c Buffer shz m~o~ w~, sidew~, ~d l~dscap~g. No aces: be ~a Coppe~ Road or Ruby Road. ~fi~ should the single Pamily residential areas / the somh ~, all the P. oad to thc north uld include an $' to thc LI zu'ca will fl'cctivlv but'for I,i & During thc March 24, I?74 Planning and/onmg q 'emmt~.~ton meeting c0nceming case ~ZC-559(ch), please change thc Zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industrial at'ca to SF~7 noli.h of Rulpy Road (cun'cnfly 2F-9) and the remaining tract 1.1 witl~ a 50' lmt't~ {m (',,ppcll Road the east, a 50' buft~ north & around {.ocb i.ane ~,~ the s~m!b ~. a!l the way to Bethel Road), and a 50' butlkr along P, uby (the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). 'Ibc Butlkr masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No aces bc via Coppcll Road or Ruby Road. Tlfi~ sh,,uld the single [hmily resictenlial areas ~toad to the north ~uld include an ~' s to thc LI area will :l'l~ctivlv buFl'cr |.~ & During thc March 24, 1994 Planning and Zomng i~'ommission meeting concerning case ~ZC-559(ch), please change ~e z0~g from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Indush'i~ ~a to SF-7 noi~ of Ruby Road (curronfly uffc~ 6n Coppcll Road 2F-9) ~d the remaining tract l,l with a 50' b " the e~t, a 50' bufl~ no~h & around t~och },ane to[the ~ouih ~ all the way to B~hel Road), ~d a 50' bu~kr along Ruby P_oad to the no~h ( ~e ~s~ce of the SF-7 Zomg). ~c Butler should include an 8' m~o~ w~, sidew~, ~d l~dscapNg. No accs~ to thc LI ~'ca w~ be ha Coppell Road or Ruby Road. ~fia shouldcln~ctivly l~ucco~. [: the single Family residenlial areas I ~TH~EAT RDAD con~g c~e ~ZC-5~9~ch), plcas~ change the z0mg from 2F-9, MF-2 & Li~t h~d~.i~ ~'ea to SF-7 no~ of Rub~- Road (currently 2F-9) ~d the remaining tra~t 1,1 with a 50' bullZr on ~ ~oppdl Road k~ the east, a 50' bufl~ no~h ~ around I,och ~,ane to~he ~omh ¢ all lhe way to Bethel Road), and a 50' but}~ along Ruby P. ead to the north ( ~e ~smce of the SF-7 Zomg). 'I~c Butlbr should include an S' m~o~ w~, sidew~, ~d landscap~g. No aces~ to thc LI area wD be Ga Coppetl Road or Rub~ Road. 'lqfi~ sh,,utd ¢Flbctivly buffer I.i the single Family residenliat areus / ¢(/ ! [ During the March 24, 1994 Planning and/,orang ('ommisston meeting concerning casc ~ZC-559(ch), plcasc change thc zomg Rom 2F-9, MF-2 & Light IndmUi~ ~ea to SF-7 nol~ of Rul 2F-9) ~d the remaining tract l,l with a 50' the east, a 50' butl~ no~h & around I,och t,ane way to B~hel Road), ~d a 50' butI~ along P, uby ( ~e &since of the SF-7 Zomg). 'I~c Buflkr m~o~ w~, sidew~, ~d l~dscap~g. No accs~ to thc LI re'ca be ha Copp¢ll Road or Ruby Road. qqfi~ should ~tl~ctivly buffer the single {hmily residenliai areas ,v Road (currently m (!oppell Road lo the ~mlh ! alt the ¢.ead to thc north uld include an S' ~TH~EAT ROAD During thc M~ch 24~ 1974 PIanmn~ and Zonm~ ~ 'ommiss~on meeting concerning casc #ZC-$59(ch), please change thc zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Indus~ial au'ca to SF-7 no~In of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9) and the remaining tract 1.1 with a 50' butTc~ ,m ('oppcll Road to the east, a 50' buffer north & around I.och I.ane t~ the q~m!b q all the wayto Bethel Road), and a 50' bultkr along P. uby ¢oad to the north ( the distance of the SF-7 Zomg). Thc Butlbr should include an 8' masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaphng. No accss to thc LI re'ca will be via Coppcll Road or Ruby Road. Tlfi.~ sh,,uld ¢ Ycctivlv burl'ct I.i & the single Family residential areas During thc March 24, 1994 Planning and ~;onm,~ ti'ommiss~on mccdng concerning case #ZC-559(ch), please change the -zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industrial area to oF-/no~th of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9) and the remaining tract 1.1 with a 50' buf'f~r, the east, a $0' buflbr north & around l,och I.ane tc way to Bethel Road), and a 50' buffer along P. uby ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). Thc Butler she masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscapMg. No aces be via Coppell Road or Ruby Road. '~U~i,~ should ~ the single ~amily residcnlial are~4s m (Ioppcll Road to the soulb ! all the P. oad to thc north uld include an S' to thc LI az'ca will ffccdvly buffer Li [ I ' During thc March 24, 1994 Planning and/,op:ng '!'ommi.xs~on mooting ¢on¢¢ming case ~ZC-559(ch), please change the zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industda] area to SF-7 no,th of Ruby Road (cun-¢ntly 2F-9) and thc rcmainin~ tract |,l wit& a :50' lmlT~r *in ('oppcll Road the east, a 50' buffer north & around I,och t,ane m way to Bethel Road), and a 50' but~kr along Ruby ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). Thc gutlar she masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No aces: be via Copp¢ll Road or Ruby Road. ~fi.~ sh~,uld the single fiamitv resi(ienliat areas the. s~uth ! a!i thc P.?ad to thc north uld mcludc an S' to thc LI re'ca will fl'ccfivlv bulT~r Li & concerning case #ZC-559(ch), please change thc zoning fi'om 2F-9, MF-2 & Light h~dustri'al area to SF~7 no~th of Rally Road (currently 2F-9) and the remaining tract l,I with a $0' bu fi*ct im ('oppcll Road lo the east, a 50' but't~r north d,, around l:och l,ane ~{ way to B~thel Road), and a 50' hull'er along Euby ( ~e ~s~ce of the SF-7 Zomg). ~c Butler m~o~' w~, sidew&, ~d l~dscapMg. No aces be ha CoppcH Road or Ruby Road. 'lq~i~ should dl~ctivly the single family residenliat are~s the soulh ! ali the P/md to the north uld include an 8' to thc LI 0a'ca will buffc,' Li & Durml~ the March 24, l ')94 Pbnnmg and :onmg ~?ommission meeting conce~g c~c ~ZC-~9~ch~, please change the z~g from 2F-9, MF-2 & Lisht Indus~ ~'~a to gF-7 no~ of Ruby Road (~urr~nfly 2F-93 ~d the remaining tra~t t,l wifi~ a the east, a 50' bufl~ north & around t~och I,ane way to B~het Road), and a 50' bufI~ along Ruby ( ~¢ ~stance of the SF-7 Zomg). '~c Buflbr she m~o~ w~, sidew~k, ~d l~dscapk~g. No accs~ to ~c LI arca w~ bc da Coppcll Road or Rub~ Road. ~llfia sh~)uld cfl~ctivty bufibr I,i & the single [hmilv rcsMenliat m ~'opp¢ll Road to the $ou~h ~, all the P. oad to thc north uld include an S' concerning case #ZC-559(ch3, please change the zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Induslhal a~-ea to SF-7 no~ of Ruby Road (cun'enfly 2V-9) and the remaining tract LI with a 50' buffer on Coppell Road Io lhe east, a 50' butler no~h & around Loch Lane tO the south ( all way to Bethel Road), and n 50' butler along Rub>~ Road to the nm~h ( the distance of the 8F-7 Zoning). The Bult~r should include an 8' masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No ace,s to the LI area will bo via Copp¢ll Road or Ruby Road. Tiffs should ~ff¢¢tivly buffer LI & lhe single lhmily residenlial areas. During thc M~ch 24, ! 994 Planning and/,emro2 ([ 'ommiss~on meeting c0nccming case #ZC-$$9(ch), please change the Zoning from ~,I~-9, MF-2 & Light Industrial area to SF-7 north of Ruby Road (currently 2F-93 and the remaining tract 1,1 with a $0' buf[cr i)n ~ oppcll Road to the east. a $0' but't~r north & around l.och t.ane tO the .,~tnh ! a~l thc' way to Bethel Road). and a 50' buffer along Rubyl Read to the north ( tho distance of the SF-7 Zoning). 'IZc Buyer shquld include an g' masortry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No accs~ to thc LI area will b~ via Copp¢ll Road or Ruby Road. ~i,~ should ITccdvlv b~Ffcr i,i ,L the single family rcsidenlial 'are:~s concc~n$ case ..~_(-559(ch), please change thc zo~g from 2I:-9, MF-2 & Ligh: Inda~tri~ ~u'c to SF-7 xo~h of Rule?' Road (curIcntly lhe eaql, :~ '.d' bult~ noah & around I.och t~ane to~hc s,mih { all lbe ~ Bc ;bet Road), and a 50' buttkr along ¢.uby ~oad to thc north i mc distance of the SF-7 masonry wall, sidewalk. be via Coppell Road o~ ibc single thmfly rest, Thc Buttkr should include an 8' tping, No accss Ko thc 1,I al'ca will r'hi.~ .~hould cl'[~clivlv buffer I.I & During the Ivlareh 24, 1994 Plann'mg and Zoning Commission meeting concerning case #ZC-559(ch), please change the Zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Induslfial area to SF-7 no~ of Ru 2F-9) and the remaining tract LI with a 50' buffer the east, a 50' butler no~th & around Loch Lane t, way to Bethel Road), and a 50' butlkr along Rub). ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). 'Itte Buflbr sh, masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No ace~, bc via Coppcll Road or Ruby Road. Tiffs should the single thmily residenlial areas. Dy Road (cun'ently ~)n Coppell Road lo the south ( all the Road to the north )uld include an 8' s to the LI area will ,~ffectivly huffer LI & During the March 24, 1994 Plann'mg and Zoning Commission meeting concerning case #ZC-559(ch), please change the Zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Induslfial area to SF-7 norfl~ of Ruby Road (¢un'enfly 2F-9) and the remaining tract LI with a 50' buffer I)n Copp¢ll Road to lhe east, a 50' butler no~lh & around Loch Lane t, way to Bethel Road), and a 50' buttkr along Rubs. ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). The Buttbr sh, masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No ace: b¢ via Coppcll Road or Ruby Road. Tlfis should the single lhmily resklenlial areas. the south ( all the Road to the >uld include an 8' s to thc LI area will :ffectivly buffer LI & c0nccmina case #ZC-559~ch}, please change the Zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Induslrial area to SF-? north of Ruby Road (¢un'enfly 217-9) and th~ remaining Iract LI with a $0' buffer on C°ppcll Road lo lb¢ east, a $0' buft~er north & m'ound Loch Lane t~ thc south ( all thc way to Bethel Road), and a 50' bultkr along Rub3t Road to the north ( thc distance of the SF-7 Zoning). ~Ilae Butl~r sh masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No ace~ 1)¢ via Coppcll Road or Ruby Road. This should thc single lhmily residenlial areas. )uld include an 8' ;s to thc LI area will :ffectivly buffer LI & During the March 2'4, 1994 Planning .and Zoning Commission meeting concerning case #ZC-559(ch), please change the zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Induslfial m'ea to SF-7 north of Ruby Road (cun-ently 2F-9) and the remaining tract LI with a 50' buff'er on Coppell Road to the east, a 50' buft'er north & around Loch Lane tp the south ( all the way to Bethel Road), and a 50' butlkr along Rubs~ Road to the north ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). 'I1~c Buttbr sh masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No ace~ be via Coppcll Road or Ruby Road. Tlfis should Ibc single Ihmily residenlial areas. >uld include an 8' ;s to fl~c LI area will :ffectivly buffer LI & During the March 24, 1994 Planning ,and Zoning Commission meeting concerning case #ZC-55')(ch), please change the zoning from 2F-9, MF-2 & Light Industrial area to SF-7 no~th of Ruby Road (currently 2F-9) and the remaining tract LI with a 50' butter ion Coppell Road to the east, a 50' buffer no~h & around Loch Lane t6 the south ( all the wa}, to Bethel Road), and a 50' butlrkr along Rub} ( the distance of the SF-7 Zoning). 'Itm Butlbr sh masonry wall, sidewalk, and landscaping. No ace: be via Copp¢ll Road or Ruby Road. Tiffs should lhe single Ihmily residential areas. Road to the north >uld include an 8' :s to thc LI area will :ffectivly buffer LI & ~'THWEAT Ms. Marcia Tunnetl Chairperson Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Gary Seib Director of Planning City of Coppell 255 Parkway Blvd. Coppell, TX 75019 Mary Clare Fabis~ak 312 S. Coppell R~. Coppell, TX 7501~ Theodosiou Dear Ms. Tunnell: ~L~Ci. ~3 Icl Q~ I am writing with reference to the request ~or rezoning of the parcels of land fronting on Ruby and Coppell ROads. I am ~tronqly opposed tQ ~e l~nd remaining zor I would like to see the zoning changed to SF-5 and the remaining tract to be zoned SF or as with at least a 50 foot buffer on Coppe appropriate landscaping, walls, and provision area by a route other than Coppell Rd. I support the change in zoning because o~ possible multifamily development on the surrou~ of traffic, congestion, and crowding i~ numerous c-~ildr-~'in the neighborhood who have the benefits of living in a safe neighborho¢ ed,,~F~, and north of Ruby Rd. a last resort LI 11 Rd., including for access to the the impact of the ding area in terms ~ school. We have been free to enjoy .d in a homeowning community. With the addition of units so close to a single family of the neighborhood and of this irrevocably changed from a family neighborhoo( its school to an area with deteriorating t traffic, unsafe roads for children to cross a! high rate of transiency (which tends to be the large apartment developments), and a lack of neighborhood from people who are not connecte( by way of homeownership. Were the developm~ line homes or possiblly even owned townhomes tl a large nu~ber of mutlifamily residential 9rea, the character section of! Coppell would be · centered aroound ome values, heavy d ride bikes in, a case in areas with committment to the to the community nt to be zero-lot e objections would not be the same. The density would be ~ower and hence the traffic and congestion, and neighborhood cqmmitment would be present, i' Since so much single family development is ~ lready the case in this area, and since the zonimg now in place was made prior to the current development of the surroundin~ Ridge, Devonshire, Shadow Woods, and Wilsi present, it seems that further development consider the existing needs of the commu! interests of a single developer whose only mot~ I area--with Shadow ,n Elementary now in the area should ~ity and not the ve is profit. Many cities have been permanently harmed by fl sighted view of developers whose commitment to only as long as there is money to be made, al to the next place. We, the residents, will ~ after the developer has taken h'~ p~fi~ ani o~ot ~nt ~o left to dea~ with the result~ devotion to profit if it will cost us our neig] I strongly urge you and the Planning and Z~ consider the interests of those people who who have a committment to its schools because we are what make Coppell a special pt~ Coppell's "specialness" is why home values a2 is considered one of the most desirable areas metroplex. Please do~t make a decision ti ~hese aspects of Coppell. It is in no one's ~llowing the short- a community lasts ~d who then move on ~ontinue here long left Coppel%. We of a developer's ~borhood. ~ning Commission to .ve in Coppell and ~d to the community ~ce to live in and 'e high, and why it !or families in the ~at will compromise [terest but that of a "ready to move on" deVeloper. Thank you for your consideration and attention Sincerely, Mary Clare Fabisl ~a~ ~heodosio~ 424 COJB¥ AVENUE COPPELL; TEX~B 75019 (214) 353-0230 FAX (214) 462-9567 March 18, 1994 Ms. Marsha Tunnall, Chairman Planning and Zoning commission Coppell Town Center 255 Par~way Boulevard Coppa11, Texas 75019 Re: Agenda Item 11 of the I~:oh 14, xgg4 P&H Dear MB. Tunnel1: This letter is to expressly inquire re HEARING to consider approval of a #ZC-$S~(CH) &s it relates to tho parse1 South of Ruby Road and to tbs Wast of Coppe Comments mmda by Mr. Gary L. Sieb, Dir~ Community Sarvioee, and the commissions found to be troublaeomo to eavoraX of thor attandanca at your March z4, xgg4 moating. PXaaea explain why Mr. Siab*s conduct the raprasantativae from N(~, prior to seemed to be more 'friandlT/warmar# than othar propert7 owners? Tha impression Commission coneidarad Casa #SC-$$0(~[) a d ~Y soningl Masting 1sting to the P~BLXC oning change, Case of land Just to the 1 Road. Jotor of Planning and Japeries to them were ,e of ua who wars in and demeanor towards ;ha special saslion, towards soma of the was that tho )no deal in favor cf Altar the public comment and some disc~aaion on tho part of the men,ars of fha ~&Z Commission, Mr. Sieb'a comments again appaarad to be notioeabl~ different than hie cements ralativa to the prior six parcels {Agenda xtemo s t~rouqh X0}. Hr. Sieb seemed to want onX~ to keep the Boning on ~hil parcel the same, so that it would **conform to the oarliar 15S7 overall plan*'. If this was not an overriding consideration ~elative to the other parcels, wh2 should it be an overriding consideration relative to thio parcel? -- / After the public comment, it was olea~12 obvious to all in the room save Mr. 8ieb and the members o~the commission, that the homeowners were in agreement, and perfectly content to accept tho following: the land belonging to NCH ~ocatad South of Ruby All of Ccppe11 road should be Boned Light Industrial. Roada~nd welt of ! - 2 - b. & fifty foot wide portion of the : to the West of Coppell Road should be d belt, and landscaped in accordance with Hatch X8, 1994 fCH land located ~ust Jsignated as a green the city's landscape requirements. ~ c. That · six foot or higher brick wall be erected ~ust to the West of the fifty foot greenbelt. d. That no road ·ooexe from coppell Road through such green belt ever be possible. [ / To the surprise of the homes·ers, the[commieeion then felt the need to go into private executive Session, and finally decided to table 8 decision on thio #specialH parcel until the next meeting on the 24th. [ Because of theee actions, it An ezpreef explain the following on the record during requested that you next meeting: a. Why wee thio parcel set es late Harsh 14th meeting? the agenda for the b. Why was the March ,4th moating at a time, during semester break, when many o£ tho famAlJ who are dArectly impacted by your decielone, would be out or the city with their fmailien? If thio date van ~ot set intoationlll, why wasn,t this factor considered? ! / Next, ! would again like to ezpreo· ~y opposition to the continuation of any ~ Boning to the Welt of Ooppel! Road. &o st·ted during the mtiq, ! live in the H~nte~vood Subdivision, end the noise levels are not ecoeptablet When ! travel, z find that Z seek out e~oommodatione far from any airport ~uot to en3oy the pease and quletl [ As a former apartment dweller in Xrv~ng for nix years, x find it hard to believe that you, in good Ooneolenoe, a· members of the ~&s Commieelon would euppooe tha~tho health and veil being of apartm·nt complex, it does not follow that they ere or will become criminls. What the facto do eoo~ to support in every city across the land, is that where population density crime rate and agate the cities : fr. aportm.nt em could, move out of an ~partment and purchase Xt was stated that on the planned 29 ~oree of JiF, that the owner believee that · maximum of 20 uniters the acre would be built. Thio mean· that S80 apartmente would be built under the noise cone of Drw. ~seumAng that each a~urtment had only one child, the school system on the wear side w~uld be inundated He. #·rsh· Tu~sll - 3 - with an excess of students. This would the quality of instruction available to our you really want to be responsible for the of education received My the Wilson and Pinkerton has been ·warded the status of ' the Texas Bduoation agency. It should he was the only school in the Coppell XBD honor! &e els·where inour country, espl government seems frequently to ·ct to dest uniquely good, positive or productive! March 18~ 1994 suit in · decline in school children. Do ecl·ne in the quality Pinkerton students? 'Exemplary School" h~ noted that Plnkerton to be awarded this oi·lly ·t this t~ms, :oy anything which is our property taxes are too highlll Me simply do not need additional children in our school e~stem~_ without the corresponding increase in the property values ·nd thus the tax bass, to support that increased demand for school, firs, police and other city services. / I submit that you are charged with Baking those decisions which Raint·in, support and hopefully ~uprove our property values and increase our tax base over tho. Apartments increase the tax base for · brief period, but never enough to support the · dditiounl burden placed upon thc homeowner for all ~nner of services. &e · result of actions taken by the city concerning the percent of axterior brick, the noise levels, and the high level of taxes, X ~an act now moll my hem® for what X paid for it nine years ago. Xf you ~xa~lno and aount thc "For Leasc" signs on the West side of Denton Tap, YeW will see that there · rs elrendy many rental opportunities available to workers in the new industrial aroem Xoemtod in ~ha westarn part of Coppell. X submit to you that eno reemoafor the increase in "'For Lease" signs is thc fact that many he, ewers are unable to sell their homes without loosing money. T~e only way to sell · hole now, seems to bo to lull it firet, sO that when you sell, your lose will et least ha deduotiblel DO you want to hasten this situation where lore and lore homol Welt of Denton Tap he **For Lense""? When neighborhoods change from owner occupied to leased holes, the properties deteriorate and the values decline Juet ·e with apartm·nte. The ta~ base erodes and the city has budget problems. / I submit that growth for the make of growth is not needed in coppelll Growth that adds to thc tax base~t rates greater than th. total of th. rat. of inflation plu. ,he rat. of expert.iv. city COltS, are welcomed. Orowth t~t ~mm fr~ each and ever~ current homeowner, Just for thc sake of qr neededl In closing, please make Coppell known of OWNER OCCUPXMD single f~lXy holeowne afford to live in and maintain their own good education for their childrent >wth is not wanted or for being · oouunity re, who can actually homes and provide · Ka. K&rah& Tunnell - · - Xa~h %8~ 1994 Huntervood subdivisi~n DL~ItqG & ~.GMIMG ~ETItgG'. ~YA.[q4 CGUNC{L MEETING · REPLY FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Consider change in zoning from: MF-2 and LI to any a~ppropriate zoning district classification, including, but not limited to, SF-7, SF-9. SF-12. SF-18, SF-ED, 2F-9, MF-1, and/or LI. The City of Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission would this case in order that they may make a better informed reco If you desire to express an opinion, please complete this following address by the date of the public hearing: ke to receive your comments on mendation to the City Council. :ply form and return it to the 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 pubic hearing and we encourage all interested parties to attend and comment if they wish. / 1 If you have any questions pertaining to the case, please call the planning and Zoning Department at 462-0022. , 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: Phone #: 994 . REPLY FOR THE PLA~ING AND ZONIN(~ COMM~gN ,/ Consider ch~e in zonin~ from: MF-2 ~d LI to ~v ~ o~ro~fiat~ .... ~ classification, including, but not limited to, SF-7, SF-9, SF-E and/or LI. The City of Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission would lJ this case in order that they may make a better informed recon If you desire to express an opinion, please complete this following address by the date of the public heating: 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 ease, please call the at 462-0022. 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: d Signature: Address: ;. SF-18, SF-ED, 2F-9, MF-1, ke to receive your comments on mendation to the City Council. '.ply form and return it to the ic hearing and we encourage all 'lanning and Zoning Department P~PL¥ ~O~ TH~ PLANNIN~ AN~ ZON~N6iCOMMISS~ ~ 8 I~ ' and/or LI. The City of Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission would this case in order that they may make a better informed recom If you desire to express an opinion, please complete this re following address by the date of the public hearing: :e to receive your comments on rnendation to the City Council. ply form and return it to the City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Department P.O. Box 478 I Coppell, Texas 75019 / / This reply form in no way affects your rights to attend the publlc heating interested parties to attend and comment if they wish. / and we encourage all If you have any questions pertaining to the case, please call the [ at 462-0022. 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: ~d~ ~ Signature: Address: Phone fi: lanning and Zoning Department / I. 424 COZB¥ AVENUE COPPELLv TEXA8 75019 (214) 393-0230 FXX (214) 462-9567 April 21, 1994 Planning & Zoning Co~misston Coppsll To~n Center 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019 Rs: Case #ZC-559(CH) Dear Madam Chairman and Gentlemen: Thi~ letter is to expressly ~ddr~ss certain matters concerning the P[~LIC HF~RINGS to conslde~approval of a zonLng change, Case #ZC 559(CH) as it relates to tho parcel of land just to the South of Rt~y Road and to the W~st of Coppsll Road. Much has been said, by various developers, about the fact that when a city "Lowers" the zoning on · ~articular parcel that the property owner has been damaged because of a ""Taking"" of value/property r%ghts. I feel t~at it is ~scsssary to point o~t that when the c~ty allows certain proper~ to be developed ~n ~uch a way that it imposes d~sproporti~nats and undue tax increases upon other property owners, thane "Taking" from all effected owners has resulted. It appears that should the P&Z and thE~ City not rszon~ the NCH parcel to LI totally, end that the MF zoning remaLn in place, that the result will be a taking of the value and rights of all current home owners in Coppe11 when apartments ~re constructed. This taking will be simila~ to the taking which occurred when the City permitted the development of the postal fac~lity. It appears that little or no r%venue eccrues to the City,.but the city and the tax payers have~ncurred extra police and fxrs protection costs. It would follow that if a developer impact fees for such things as sewer and wa same developers charged with long term impact caused by their development upon the school system? This brings to mind what flaw in the P&Z Process. is charged long term ter, why aren't these impact fees for the police, fire and the perceive as a major From recent meetings with PiS psrson~sl, it appears that there is little or no re&l consideration o~coordinatlon between ISD actions and the City actions. A oasu&l phone eel1 is not sufficient! When the City P&Z Committee acts in such a way that it triggers the construction of larger or &ddltional schools to Planning end 20ninq Comuission, Page 2, april 21, 1994 be built, without charging ~mpact foes t~ o££ set such school costs, the COmmittee ie placing undue burdens upon the current property owners who are subject to taxes l~vied not only by the City, b~t also the lSD. This type 0£ Jplanning has brought Coppell citizens to the current high level of property taxes. Hany of us are still unable to sell our h~mes for what we have in them. It appears that as to income pro~erty, for every $1.00 increase in taxes levied, the owner experiences a $6.00 decline in {value} market sales price! During a recent P&Z meeting, n eom committee member that the public appeared back yard°~ attitude. Pardon me, but it of the committee should have exactly continued development of Coppell, as in cause higher taxes end finally lower velu charged with making those decisions which in such · way that the tax base will he iinoreased by amounts nent was made by a ;o have & "Not in our Jams that each member .hat attitudel The he past, will surely Je for all. You are will develop Coppell large .enough to more than pay for any increase in the costs to ~he City AND THE ISD. In other words, don't place development · n our back yard which will destroy our hac~ yard1 Please consider this quote from President William H. Taft~ '*Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed By the Constitut~on and the one which, united with that Of personal liberty, has ~ontr~huted more to the growth of o~vili~ation than any other institutign established by the human race." Thank you for your time and oonsiderati~n! Sincerely, Paul E. Orinager Homoowner Hunterwood subdivis~on