ST1002-CS090625
(11/21/2011) Ken Griffin - Fwd: RE: Coppell RoadPage 1
From:
Mindi Hurley
To:
Griffin, Ken; Phillips, Clay; Sieb, Gary; Steer, Matt
CC:
Canizares, Mario
Date:
6/25/2009 11:52 AM
Subject:
Fwd: RE: Coppell Road
I talked to Greg about our questions and our answers to his questions, and I have included his responses
below. I have also communicated all of this to Pete. Greg is VERY unhappy about our refusal to include
language that would prevent the City from granting variances for parking. I told him that Gary said it is
very unlikely that Planning will ever recommend approval for parking variances that would put a huge
burden on the public parking and that he would also have his opportunity to express his disapproval for
the parking variance during the public hearing process. Make sure you read his response below.
Here were our questions:
1) Streetscape Improvements: Is the City or Company responsible for streetscape, lights and private side
of street improvements?
- The City is responsible for ALL lighting in the development. The City is NOT responsible for streetscape
or private side of street improvements. The only place the City is responsible for streetscape is any place
that abuts City owned land.
2) Public vs. Private Street/Infrastructure: Can Company provide a pictorial depiction of what is public and
what is private? Is Crockett a public street?
- Bill Peck is working on a pictorial depiction, and Greg will provide a copy as soon as he gets it.
- Crockett IS a public street.
3) Will utilities be buried?
- No
4) Entry Feature: Land and Dimensions.
- Greg e-mailed me a drawing they would like for their entry feature. I will forward it to everyone.
5) Project name/Street names: To be determined by City Council.
- Greg wants this discussion to begin immediately because it is a deal killer if he has to have "Old"
anywhere in the name of his project.
Below is his response about our refusal to come up with language that states that the public parking may
not be used for another's zoning requirements:
>>> "Greg Yancey" <gregyancey@verizon.net> 6/25/2009 10:41 AM >>>
Hi Mindi:
We'll have to find a way to figure this out together, because we cannot do
the deal like this. Here's why:
If Coppell Deli were to demolish the present building and construct a 6,000
sf restaurant, the City could grant a parking variance in spite of what we
may say in a hearing.
(11/21/2011) Ken Griffin - Fwd: RE: Coppell RoadPage 2
If Mr. Chaddick should decide to sell his property to a restaurant or
wedding chapel without providing reasonable parking for those uses, we
cannot allow them over-burden the parking for our owners/tenants.
It was never our intent to build public parking for surrounding land owners,
especially when those users could take actions which make our own property
unusable. We only agreed to allow our parking to be public because the City
We are requiring our high-density users like restaurants or salons to
provide parking. We need the City to do the same.
We cannot build a $30 million project and have neighboring property owners
hinder our ability to create a development that is successful for the City.
I think we need to all work together so we don't have those conflicts in the
future.
Gregory K. Yancey
Provident Company
(214) 215-9400 v
(214) 276-1709 f
gregyancey@verizon.net
Mindi Hurley
Economic Development Coordinator
City of Coppell
255 Parkway Blvd.
Coppell, TX 75019
(972) 304-3677
(972) 304-3673 (fax)
www.ci.coppell.tx.us