Corners Coppell-CS021114FROM .. FAX NO. 1 212 599 1450 Nov. 14 2602 05:0BPM P2
November 14, 2002
,', NOW 1 4 2002 '+
;, .,~ ~i
is ~~ ~
vla FaX (972) 304-7092 AND
1YAN0 D.E.UVERY
Ms. Marcie Diamond
Assistant Daector o[ Planning
City of Coppell, TX
PO Box 9478
255 Parkway Boulevard,
CoppeU, TX 75019
Dear Ms. Diamond:
M
~~1
k
ixr.nnra x~rro
Re: Case No.: PD-97R-R
Corners of CoppeU
PD-97-R to PD-97R-R
Reklaw Partnership LLC ("Reklaw") is the owner of We property adjacent, on the
east and south sides, to the property subject to the zoning referenced above (sa-d
property subject to the zoning application above•sbaU be referred to herein as the
"Subject Property"). Reklaw is opposed to the proposed zoning amendment
referenced as Case No.:PD-97R-R
'Until the existing shopping center is occupied, the driveways should remain closed
for the protection of the shopping center buildings and the general welfare of We
community. The Reciprocal Easement Agreement referenced in the staff report
created oa the property subject to the easement certain reciprocal easements over
the paved areas "as such may from time to time exisN'. Fnrtber, the easement was
granted for the benefit of the owners of the properties and such licensees, or
siEiliates, now or hereafter occupying s building or portions thereof on said Parcels
for the period of such tenancy, snd to the customers, employees, snd business
invitees of said owner or owners and tenants, trsnchisees, licensees, or a[flliates;
provided that nothing herein is intended to create, and shal_1 not he construed as
creatinr anv ~hts L snd [or t_hP benefit of the general up blic." [emphasis added]
The easement does not create a public access easement, nor does it require an owner
to provide such an easement.
The roadway leading into the shopping center property is closed to traffic from both
entrances of MarArWnr Boulevard and Sandy Lake lioad to prevent unauthorized
entry into the vacant shopping center tact. Unless and until our building is leased
and occupied, we will contlnne to keep the entrances and exits cln7aed. Over the
years we have experienced major damage to the building and have spent multiple
thousands of dollars for repairs. Creating a public access easement world open the
driveway, and our unoccupied property, to the general public. We do not believe
that it is the right time to create a public access easement on this driveway. pbrther,
For similar reasons, we do not believe it is the Hght time to pave additional property
within the shopping center lots.
_ C~^ !
~~1
81w Chip Pa7trnrs, Inc.
873 T17Y0 Avu7u~. /J7nv YoA6 NY 10077
(212) 331-0400 /('112) gp0.1~301707
aCPMnE+~Vao~m+i
FROFI FFlX N0. 1 212 599 1450 Nov. 14 2002 05:0BPM P3
page 2
Ms. Marde Diamond
11/14/02
Reklaw mast protect its investment and looks to the City to help in this endeavor.
The Texas statues specitlcally provide that zoning must be designed to "secure
safety from [ire, panic and other daneers" and to "promote health and me general
welfare". Allowing the proposed development at this time, with speculative uses,
does not former this statutory mandate. We do not dew any right to the reciprocal
access easement that S&S I{im Corp. may have, but we believe this is not the right
time to allow vehicular use into our center and expose the center, and possibly the
City, to unnecessazy security risks liability that could come [rom unauthorized
people and traffic on the shopping center property.
Onr property, Coppell Citl Center, consists of 115, 000 square feet which has been
vacant for some time by choice. It is our desire to bring to the City quality retail
users that generate real tax revenue for me City. Over the years we have rejected
the occupancy of speculative and poor quality retail and commercial tenants whom
by their use and occupancy would not enhance the linage of the City and this
outstanding shopping center property. Queatioaable uses is the proposed 5,970
square foot building could set a development pattern for this intersection that
inhibits optimal retafl users and prevents quality retail development Once again,
for the general welfare of the City, the proposed use does not make sense at this
time.
Accordingly, Reklaw does not believe that We proposed development is appropriate
at this time and opposes the proposed zoning amendment We respecNilly sabmit
this written protest pursuant to Section 211.006 (d) of the Texas Local Government
Cade and Section 44-6 of the City of Coppell Zoning Ordinance.
egards,
.~
ur Walker Manager
Reklaw 1'arlaership, LLC
A Texas Corporation