Loading...
PD178-CS 990423April 23, 1999 Estate of Joe C. Hinckley, et al 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 return back to place of agreement and a solution that is achievable for the City in the near future. Yours truly, Alen ~ Estate of Joe C. Hinckley et al Enclosures- PD 178 & Exhibit CC: Ken Griffin - City Engineer Bill Anderson - Dowdy Anderson & Assoc.