U-Haul/SPAm-CS0012271~/27/00 WED 17:06 FAX 214 745 5864 WS&M DALLAS FLOOR 54 ~002
WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK
December 27, 2000
VIA FACSIMILE
Gary Sieb, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning & Community Services
City of Coppell
255 Parkway Blvd.
Coppell, Texas 75019
5400 Rena~'sance Tower
1201 E"lm Street
Dallas, Texas 75170
214/745-$400
fax 214/745-5390
www. win~ead.¢om
~h-cct dial, 74.~-11~310
i ~ h nurrr~,,q n.s I'cad. c o.m
Re: U-Haul International Site Plan
Dear Mr. Sicb:
This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation on Thursday, December 21,2000. The
telephone conference call included you, myself; Randy Carlin, Jeff Evans and Carlos Vizcarra,
representatives for U-Haul International. City Attorney Bob Hagar informed Ar~ Anderson that your
input was needed to verify the compliance of U-Ilaul's pending site plan with Coppell's various
development ordinances. The pm-pose of this telephone conference call was to discuss the site plans
previously submitted by U-Haul International for the January 9, 2001 City Council hearing and to
determine if any additional revisions would be required.
When asked for your comments, you initially staled that you did not have any specific
comments concerning the submitted site plans because they are different than those reviewed and
denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 16, 2000. You added that the City'
Council will likely relier the revised plans back to thc Planning and Zoning Commission for
reconsideration o.d.r that the City Council will deny the revised plans because they are different than
what was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. You continued that we can expect the
City Council to go into executive session at the January 9, 2000 public hearing aud not provide any
comments or direction to U-Haul concerning its application.
Randy, Jeffand I responded that your November 17, 2000 letter concerning our appeal to the
City Council expressly anticipated and allowed for the submission of revised plans and established
a submittal date of December 1, 2000. Therefore. we submitted 17 copies of thc revised plans in
accordance ,Mth your spcci tic instructions. Additionally, we discussed with you that the plans were
further revised in response to the denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Wc discussed that
it would be not only unwise, but unusual, not to make changes following a recommendation of
denial. You responded that your November 17, 2000 letter contained "lx)ilerplate" language and that
the ~evised plans contained substantial chm~ges such as the removal of a sh~gle parking space, the
DALLAS HOUSTON' AUSTIN FORT WORTH MEXICO CITY
WED 17:07 FAX 214 745 5864 WS&bi DALLAS FLOOR 54 ~003
Gary Sieb
December 27, 2000
Page 2
addition of plant material, and changes to the elevations, none of which seemed to be "substantial"
at ali. You then refused to make any specific staffcormnents concerning the revised plans.
After further prodding, you did generally comment on ~ecific questions that were posed to
you. You commented that thc use does not comply with the current zoning. You also corranented
that we need to "just read the ordinance" concerning the landscaping requirements. Ilowevcr, when
asked, you refused to comment on whether the revised plans actually comply with the code. You
further commented that you were concerned with the spill-over o£1ighting onto adjacent properties,
stating that "there is an awful lot or lighting." You added, "make sure you comply with the
ordinances." When asked il'any specific lighting was the cause of your concern, you reiterated that
we need to "look at the ordinances." You expressed a further concern regarding the glare from thc
glass on the structure. We re~onded that we will comply with the code. You noted that we "need
to look at the ordinances." You also commented that there is the "truck issue" still remaining. You
expresscd a concern as to the "signage" on the trucks and noted that the signage on the trucks is not
allowed. You further stated that there is an issue of where the trucks will be parked, but provided
no direction as to the provisions ol'the code which affect truck parking. Finally, you commented that
there was a concern by you and the Planning and Zoning Commission that a portion of~e inside of
the structure is visible through the glass. Again, you did not reference a code violation. We
commented that this was a safety issue.
With each of these general concerns you raised, we requested specific comments from you.
Each response was the same: "You need to look at the ordinances." You provided no assistance to
thc applicant to adckess any legitimate concerns of code compliance.
If there are any inaccuracics contained in this letter, please respond immediately in writing
to thc above address. Should you have any questions concerning tiffs matter, please contact me at
(214) 745-5330.
Very truly yours,
M._,l~mes R. Schnurr
CCi
Randy Carlin (fax 602/277-1026)
Bob tlagar (fax 214/965-0010)
Art Anderson (of the firrn)
34141181
1202:13868-54