Riverchase(2)-CS 881121 KIRK & DILLARD
IForrnerly Saner. Jack, Sallinger & Nichols)
Atto~eys & Counselors at Law PREEN CEN'~R FICE
1800 Lincoln Pl~a s222 o~. A.,. S~
500 N. Ak~d D~. Te~ 75225
(214) 692-1218
D~as. Texas 75201
Facsimile (214) 954-3334
November 21, 1988 o
Mr. Alan D. Ratliff
City Manager
City of Coppell
P. O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Re: Golf Clubhouse Facility Exemption
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
This is in response to councilman Tom Morton's memorandum to you dated November
14, 1988, a copy of which is attached.
I have no way of recalling the precise facts surrounding the P&Z meeting,
however, to the best of my memory, I was contacted approximately two hours before
the meeting and asked to attend because a question had come up concerning the
exemption provision in the private club ordinance. At the meeting, I reviewed the
ordinance and did, in answering the Commission's questions, state that I felt that the
ordinance "as written" should be interpreted as permitting the grant of a special use
permit for a "private club" as opposed to a "restaurant with a private club." I am still
of the opinion that a court, without the aid of additional evidence concerning the intent
of the Council at the time the ordinance was adopted, would come to the same conclusion.
That is, that on its face, the ordinance speaks to an exemption for a "private club" as
that term is specifically defined in the ordinance and not to a "restaurant with a private
club" as that term is specifically defined in the ordinance. The Commission did understand
that they had a choice in the matter and that my opinion would not prevent them from
acting on the application as presented, which they did in recommending approval of the
special use permit for restaurant with private club with the variances as requested by
the applicant.
Based on my best memory of the meeting, I was asked the following question:
"If we (the Commission) grant a special use permit for a "private club" without variances
or conditions, would the establishment be regulated only by the state regulations dealing
with private clubs?" I believe that I correctly answered this question in the affirmative
and I do not think that I left the Commission with the impression that the exemption/
provision would permit the golf course to operate a private club without obtaining a
special use permit to which any special condition could be imposed. If I did leave the
Commission with this impression it was certainly not my intent to do so.
When asked to interpret the provisions of an ordinance, I am bound by the specific
language of the ordinance. On the other hand, the City Council can consider facts
outside the specific language of the ordinance in an attempt to determine the intent of
the original adopting Council. The Council can then make a finding to clarify the true
intent of the provision. Such additional evidence was discovered between the time of
the P&Z meeting and the City Council meeting. The staff and myself had a two-week
period to study the matter more closely as well as talk to other members of the City
Council. It appeared that there was a difference of opinion among members of the
Council as to the original intent of this provision and it was decided that the provision
did need clarification. To accomplish this a special item was placed on the City Council
agenda to be considered before taking up the zoning change requested by the golf
course. Since we were asking the City Council to make an interpretation based on
evidence outside the specific language of the ordinance, I did not offer my opinion
concerning the exemption provision and merely presented to the Council the facts and
outside evidence. If I had been asked to give my opinion based strictly on the language
of the ordinance, my opinion would have been the same as I gave to the P&Z.
It was my opinion that the Council would end up with the same result regardless
of which direction it took in its interpretation of the exemption provision. Since the
Council had total control over the matter regardless of which way it interperted the
ordinance, it was felt that the Council's decision was needed only to clarify the
procedure to be followed by an applicant. At the meeting the City Council had before
it as additional evidence a letter from Riverchase which strongly suggested that the
exemption provision dealt with permitting a "restaurant" with a private club to go into
a "residential area" if it was also associated with a golf course and clubhouse. It was
this letter that added the necessary evidence to permit the present City Council to
interpret the exemption provision not withstanding the specific language of the provision.
I certainly appreciate the opportunity to answer councilman Morton's inquiry.
Very truly yours,
SALLINGER, NICHOLS, JACKSON,
KIRK & DILLARD
By
LWJ/sb
Enclosure
.... ~..:~ ?'..'-.
/
To: Alan Ratliff, City Manager /
From: Tom Morton, Councilman PlaceX~/, ' ~'
Date: November 14, 1988 ~
Subject: Possible Golf Clubhouse Facility Exemption
Alan , this is to confirm our conversation concerning the
seeming confusion concerning the interpretation of the above
mentioned exemption to Section 29.15 of the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Coppell.
The confusion is caused by the possible different
interpretation of the exemption that the City Attorney gave to
the P&Z and the City Council. According to a letter sent to
each of the member~; of the City Council, the Chairman of the
P&Z Commission states the following:
"(2) City Attorney Larry Jackson also a~.peared before the
P&Z and stated that his opinion was that the
ordinance, as written, had granted Riverchase an
exception to the ordinance. They could, therefore,
serve alcohol at the club without complying with the
provisions required for a "restaurant with private
club". Much discussion followed on the point, but the
consensus was that Riverchase could be allowed to
operate and would be controlled only by the less
restrictive s .ate statute , not the Coppell
ordinance."
The above stated interpretation was not the understanding I
developed after the presentation by the City Attorney on this
subject at the October 25, 1988, meeting of the City Council.
I would appreciate some clarification of the seeming confusion
of the interpretation.
Thanks for the help.
MEMORANDUM
November 15, 1988
TO: Larry Jackson, City Attorney
FROM: Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager do'J?::':/~_
SUBJECT: Legal Opinion Riverchase Golf Clubhouse Exemption
REF: Memorandum 11-14-88 Morton/Ratliff
I have received a memorandum requesting clarification as to
the opinion you provided to the City Council and to the
Planning and Zoning Commission. A copy of the referenced
memorandum is attached and we would request that you provide
the clarification of the subject.
ADR/dgc
xc: Tom Morton, Councilman
Mayor and City Council