Loading...
PD158RR-CS 970311· 250 S. Denton Tap Road · CoppeH, Texns 75019 · 214/304-3267 Candy Sheehan 759 Pelican Ln. Coppell, TX 75019 Dear Ms. Sheehan, This letter is in reference to the request of the Grand Car Wash for a proposed zoning change that will be discussed on March 11, 1997 at the Coppell City Council meeting. This proposed zoning change at the corner of MacArthur and Riverchase Dr. from Retail to Planned Development has raised many concerns that should be outlined. Concerns I. Effects of zoning change to master plan on present business investment in Coppell and the precedent it sets for future business investors II. Devaluation of present business investments III. Future problems exposed by this project as to the use of Planned Development Firstlssue The first issue that is of concern is the change of Coppell's master development plan on a location from retail to planned development, for a commercial use that would normally require the developer to choose a commercial zoned property and obtain a Special Use Permit. As a previous developer in this city, we took substantial time and effort to search for a location that would meet both the parameter~ ~et by Coppell'~ master plan and still provide us a commercial zoned property that would be convenient and highly visible to our customers. During this process, we also became quite familiar with the other potential commercial zoned sites where a competitor might choose to build. This knowledge of property was a primary decision maker in our choice of location, because we felt very comfortable that the location we chose met our requirements for convenience and visibility and was the best choice overall from the properties in Coppell that would allow for such a project. · 250 S. Denton Tap Road · Coppell, Texas 75019 · 214/304-3267 In comparison, this project has chosen the best site available now with no concern for Coppell's master plan. We were led to believe that there would never be a car wash facility allowed on or near the two major retail comers of Sandy Lake and Denton Tap or Beltline and MacArthur, because both of these comers were zoned for retail. In addition, this zoning would never be changed to commercial zoning, because of the precedent that would be set. The master plan of this city was created to give business and home owners the ability to see into the future. The forethought was this ability would aid their judgment so that they could best plan their real estate investment for their future. This ability to plan for the future is highly important. We never assumed we would be competition-free, just that our competitors would be denied the exposure of a high traffic corner zoned for retail and be forced to build on a commercial designated property. Second Issue The second problem created by this proposal is the devaluation of our present investment and the potential devaluation of other business investments if a precedent is set that would allow commercial projects to build on retail zoned properties. In order to give the best insight into this problem an example is necessary. Our project is valUed on the basis of real estate, sales, and proximity of competition. For clarity in this example, sales and proximity of competition will be held as a constant for both competitors varying only the real estate. If both competitors were built on commercial zoned property in Coppell and the other items of sales and proximity were held constant, then a potential buyer for either project would determine that the projects are of similar value. However, if one of the competitors is allowed to build a project on a retail zoned property, then the value of the project built on commercial property becomes devalued. It could be argued that the retail project will increase in value, but a potential purchaser of a business has other options outside of Coppell that keep an increase in value in line with other projects in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. Thus, the business that is penalized is the business that built on commercial zoned property. In the business world, we understand that sales cannot be held constant and that competition is a given. Our concern is not one of competition because we are very satisfied with the response that we have received from our customers. However, we feel that it is important that we protect our investment in Coppell and state our concerns about the importance this planned development on retail zoned property has on all business owners in Coppell. · 250 S. Denton Tap Road · Coppell, Texas 75019 · 214/304-3267 Third Issue Finally, we are concerned about the use of Planned Development zoning by future developers. A Planned Development has only been used one other time to our knowledge to develop the project on the southwest corner of Mac. Arthur and Beltline. This project had extensive questions that concerned road infrastructure, development of multiple businesses, and the varying landscape requirements of these multiple businesses. We can understand that this project was very important to Coppell to stimulate development on that corner and to accomplish meeting the needs of the of the landowner, the many different developers of business, and the city. However, it is difficult to see the necessity of planned development on this project. On this project, there is one landowner and one business developer. In discussion with city staff about this project, it was stated that the developer requested a planned development with the knowledge that a planned development allowed him the leeway to negotiate with the city on such items as landscape and signage. If it is the City of Coppell's intention to negotiate such items, then why are there landscape and signage requirements. Passage of this zoning change could set the most dangerous precendent of all. Developers will be given notice that the most effective way around our stringent requirements for development is to build your development under the pretense of a planned development. It allows the developer the ability to change zoning, negotiate signage and landscape, and in effect determine their own path of least resistance. We as a business would definitely like to see more businesses in Coppell, but under the same guidelines that the present businesses in Coppell were built. We would state one thing above all else, this is a zoning change by one developer from retail to commercial with all items up for negotiation under the pretense of planned development. Conclusion We appreciate the hard work that all of you as councilmembers and mayor do for our city. As residents and business owners of Coppell, wa have also strived to do our best for this city. We look forward to working with you further in the future to create a better Coppell.