ST9704-CS 990423 Estate of Joe C. Hinckley, et al
April 23, 1999
Mr. Gary L. Sieb, AICP
Director of Planning & Community Service
City of Coppell
P.O Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
RE: Case No. PD-178, Town Center West VIA FAX and U.S. Mail
Dear Gary,
This letter is to clarify issues raised by your letter dated April 16, 1999 and comments made at the
Planning & Zoning meeting on April 15th. The Estate is uncomfortable with the changes requested by
the Planning & Zoning committee and is unable to comply with your requests.
As you know, a significant amount of time, effort and costs have been spent in an effort to accommodate
the City request of 14 feet of additional ROW to be dedicated. The Estate wants to continue to work with
the City and accommodate it fairly, as it has on prior occasions. However, the agreements must be fair
for both parties and not further injure the Estate's development of the property. The request for
additional changes will have a serious negative impact on the property, and violate the intent and spirit of
the prior agreements reached with the City Staff.
However, the Estate remains willing to grant up to 14 feet for the right of way on the road expansion
conditioned upon its previous written statements and the prior mutual agreements. The Estate is relying
upon the following documents and understandings in such dedication:
1. Acceptance of the Planned Development document for PD-178 as previously submitted with concept
plan its exhibit. (copy attached)
2. Curb cut spacing, access and parking generally shown on concept plan, especially on the Eastern Site.
3. The ROW width up to 14' and Landscape Area shall remain as submitted on concept plan.
4. Permits shall be issued upon customary site plan approval at the time of development.
When the Estate was initially approached by Ken Griffin in 1997 for a second access point to the High
School, the Estate indicated a willingness to work with the City of Coppell provided its property was not
further damaged or have extra cost burdens, or have its development potential injured. Our position has
not changed. Please consider these facts:
1. In the late 1980's when the school district was contemplating acquiring the school site from the
Delman Theater, we raised the issue of secondary street access and discussed the possibility of Mills
Lane becoming a 28 foot wide street (measured from back of curb) using the existing school 24 foot
ROW as its centerline. The property owners on either side would donate an additional 8 feet of ROW
to permit public access. The school district and City rejected the proposal in 1989. Saying secondary
access would not be needed. Later the City allowed Huntington Ridge subdivision to be built in 1993
on the property line with the construction of the brick wall on the Northern edge of the 24 foot City
ROW, and again in August of 1994 the City allowed 2 more single family lots on a Re-plat; further
extending the brick wall.
2. During discussions with Ken Griffin in 1997, the Estate brought to his attention the above history and
noted the City & Schools rejection of a secondary road access in the late 1980's
12201 MERIT DRIVE / SUITE 170 / DALLAS, TEXAS 75251 / (972) 9914600 / FAX (972) 991-7500
April 23, 1999
Page 2-
3. Initially our discussions with the City Engineer in 1997 centered around moving the ROW South 5-6
feet of the proposed road and after lengthy negotiations it was resolved by both the City Engineer and
our Engineer to be 14 feet.
4. Since the area North of the existing 24 foot City ROW is now confined by the brick wall of the single
family subdivision, why should the burden of the additional ROW shift to now only have impact to
the estate and further damage the investment backed expectations it holds for the property.
5. For the Estate to now be further penalized by the request for an additional 5 feet of ROW after it very
reluctantly agreed to a final and lengthy resolution of 14' of ROW is not fair or acceptable to the
Estate.
6. We have tried on many occasions to assist and work with the City and adjacent homeowners and we
still are working toward that end. Our position remains that the resolution reached should not be
changed. The Estate does not want to be continually penalized and believe the additional 5 feet is a
further penalty and makes the development concept unworkable and not financially feasible.
It appears that if the City desires to increase the safety measure on the North side of the road, the City can
accomplish this goal through a guard rail at the time of construction of Town Center West. The issue is
not an additional five feet of space, rather it is to prevent a potential penetration of the wall by vehicular
traffic.
As you know the City approached us with this need of right of way and we have worked hard to achieve a
solution that works for both parties. Hopefully this letter clarifies the basis on which the Estate is willing
to proceed with a dedication of ROW, permit us to retum back to place of agreement and a solution that is
achievable for the City in the near future.
Yours truly,
Aien ~
Estate of Joe C. Hinckley et al
Enclosures- PD 178 & Exhibit
CC: Ken Griffin - City Engineer
Bill Anderson - Dowdy Anderson & Assoc.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.
General Purpose and Description: This Planned Development district is intended
predominately for "C" Commercial activities or uses of service nature which typically have
operating characteristics (limited outside or limited open storage) or traffic service requirements,
and to provide for flexibility of the design of buildings due to the long and narrow depth of the
property. All references herein to other sections or exhibits are referring to the City of Coppell
Existing Zoning Ordinance as currently approved as of the date of this Planned Development
District, unless otherwise noted.
1. Use Regulations:
1. Any use permitted in existing "C" Commercial, "O" Office, and "R" Retail
Districts.
2. Independent/Assisted Living Uses: generally defined as being those facilities in
which require no full time nurs6 or registered technician, but which offer
medication reminders or administration, as well as occasional assistance with
bathing or dressing adults over 55 years of age.
2. Height Regulations: Thirty-five (35) feet nor more than two and one-half (2~) stories high.
3. Area Regulations:
1. Minimum Size of Yards:
A) Front Yard: Thirty (30) feet, with no front yard parking. If front yard parking is
utilized, then the sixty (60) feet front yard setback shall be observed. However, in the
event that "Landscape Area A", as depicted on the conceptual site plan is landscaped
by the developer or property owner, or other entity, then the building line adjacent to
Town Center West Boulevard may be reduced to twenty-five (25) feet, with no front
yard parking. If front yard parking is utilized, then a fifty-five (55) foot front yard
setback shall be observed.
B) Side Yard: Thirty (30) feet; adjacent to South Property line fifteen (15) feet.
C) Rear Yard: Twenty (20) feet along the west property line and fifteen (15) feet
.along the south property line.
2. Minimum Size of Lot:
A) Lot Area: None.
B) Lot Width: None.
C) Lot Depth: None.
3. Lot coverage: In no case shall more than forty (40%) percent of the lot area be
covered by buildings.
4. Floor area ratio: Maximum F.A.R. 1.0 to 1.
City of Coppell Planned Development District # __
Page 1 of 2
4. Parking ~Requirements: Off street parking requirements shall be provided in accordance
with Section's 23-4 and 3 1.
5. Type of Exterior Construction: Construction shall comply with Section 23-5.
6. Landscape Requirement: ~ Landscaped areas shall be provided according to Section 34 and
the following modification. In the even that "Landscape Area A" as dbpicted on the
conceptual site plan is landscaped by the developer, property owner or other entity, then
Section 34, Landscaping Regulations will be modified. The following modifications to
Section 34 shall apply.
Section 34 1-8 (B) Interior Landscaping. The area depicted on the conceptual site plan
"Landscape Area A" may be applied as a credit toward the interior landscaping
percentage test. However, if the aforementioned interior Landscape credit is utilized,
then the front yard building set back from thirty (30) feet to twenty-five (25) feet shall not
apply.
Section 34 1-9 (A) Landscaping Requirements for Non-Vehicular Open Space. The area
depicted on the conceptual site plan "Landscape Area "A" may be applied to the fifteen
percent (15%) of that portion of the lot not covered by a building; provided that this area
has not been credited to the reduced front building line or Section 34 1-8 (B) interior
landscape.
To assist in security and due to the shallow depth of the land, planting islands may be up
to 20 parking spaces apart and plant material may be limited in height to 12-14 inches.
7. Areas used for open storage shall comply with Section 23-7.
g. Driveway spacing shall be allowed generally as depicted on the conceptual site plan,
including a series of driveway openings.
9. One additional driveway shall be allowed to Denton Tap Road, generally near the southeast
corner of the property.
City of Coppell Planned Development District # __
Page 2 of 2