Loading...
City Attorney let-no PD re HCSEP 12 2000 1G:45 FR NICHOLS JACKSON DILLA4 965 0010 TO 9783047092 P.02/05 NICHOLS, SACKSON, DILLARD, HAGER & SMITH, L.L.P. Robert E. Hager E-mail: rhager(~njdhs.com Attorneys & Counselors at Law 1800 Lincoln Pl~za 500 North Akard Dnllm, Texa~ 75201 (214) 965-9900 Fax (214) 9~5-~010 E-mail NJDHSONJDHS.com ROBERT L. Dff,/.ARO, H. LOUI8 NIGHO~ LAWI~IENGE W, JACgSON OFGOUN~. VIA FACSIMILE September 12, 2000 Ms, Barbara A. Wolcnty ROBINSON & WOLENT~, LLC 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 710 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 RE: Zoning Case Namber 603, C~ of Coppell, Te~az~ Dear Ms, Wolenty: Please be advised that I am in receipt of your letter dated September 11, 2000. I received the same by facsimile transmission at approximatcly 6:37 p.m. on September 11, 2000. As you were made aware, I was in trial on September 11, 2000, and was unable to attend to thc issues raised in your letter until this morning. Upon receiving this letter I apologize if you seem surprised, h did appear that during conversation we have had over the past thirty (30) days, we have talked about the possibility of placing a "PD" on parcels owned by your client which are included in Zoning Case 603, Specifically, with regard to the parcels that front Denton Tap, it was our understanding that there would be a proposed restaurant use and a proposed office or commercial use which would include a financial institution. In discussing this matter with the City Manager and City Planner, i! was our understanding that conceptually a "PD" would be an agreeable method upon which to address planning issues. However, siuce we have received no site plans on those particular tracts the Planning Director was somewhat reluctant to agree to any "PD" regulations without seeing the actual layout of the buildings and/or the size of the buildings that were proposed for that development. For that reason a "PD" would not be an appropriate mechanism to handle any proposed zoning issues at this time. Therefore, the Planning Director recommended to us that we contact you and inform you that "HC" zoning, which would permit both of the uses contemplated by your contracts within the Denton Tap parcels, would be an appropriate method to handle those items, Under the Zoning Ordinances, copies of which have been forwarded to you previously, sRe plan review would be required at an appropriate time that the [and was actually developed in accordance with "HC" regulations. The proposal with regard to the "PD" does not change the underlying usc. You are correct in assuming that a Special Use SEP 12 2000 16:4S FR NICHOLS JACKSON DILLA4 SSS 0010 TO S7230470~2 P.03/05 Ms. Barbara Wolenty Septerab~r 12, 2000 Page 2 Permit ("SUP") is required for all restaurants in the City of Coppcll, The Planning Director indicated to us that a proposed restaurant would be appropriately reviewed during the site plan and during the "SUP" process to address issues such as traffic, side yard setbacks, landscaping, and any other regulations to make sure they conform with the zoning regulations of the City. This is not an unusual requirement and in fact, is done on all restaurants in the City of Coppell in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, we feel that there has been no change of position in substance from that which the staff had made representations concerning proposed uses on those tracts as they related to the proposed zoning change which was pending. With regard to the U-Haul tract, as you are well aware, the proposed zoning change from "LI" to "HC" would preclude the use of which U-Haul desires to make of it's tract of property which you have under contract. After reviewing your letter of September 11, 2000, I have taken it upon myself to do a comprehensive review of Mr. Bunnell's participation in the selling of this tract as well as the City's proposed zoning change from "LI" to "HC". My research has indicated that Mr. Bun,ell was made aware as early as February 2000 that the City was proposing to change the underlying zoning on tracts which were along 121 and Denton Tap from Light Industrial to Highway Commercial. Specifically, the Jack-in-the-Box tract does have underlying "HC" regulations and the "SUP" which was approved has underlying "HC" zoning. Mr. Bunnell participated in the presentation of that case before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Denton Tap and Jack-in-the-Box received a favorable recommendation and the zoning is in fact in place for the use of the Jack-in-the-Box parcel with Highway Commercial zoning. Further, in June of 2000, Mr. Bunnell sent a letter to staff which he indicated they were aware of proposed changes. He claimed at that time he was unaware that a re-zoning application had been proffered by City staff to change underlying zoning on this parcel from Light Industrial to "HC". It appears from review of the file in this matter, that during the pendacy of that thirty (30) days, a contract was entered into by and between U-Haul and Mr. Bunnell covering the tract of land which was proposed to be changed on staff recommendation from "LI" to "HC". Again, this fact was not brought to the attention of the City until July 28, 2000 as a result of a letter sent by you and a telephone conversation. The City, in proceeding ahead with the "U-Haul Tract", was not made aware that your client was the owner of that tract and sent notice to Centex Development Corporation, your predecessor in title. On or about June 12, 2000, a letter was addressed to the Planning Department whereby it indicated that the Denton Tap Development, LLC were the owners of the "U- Haul Tract" and that the property was proposed to be rezoned and notice would be reissued in accordance with the law. Further, based on the contract agreement sent to us by your firm, it indicates that a contract was entered into on or about June 7, 2000 of the sale of the "U-Haul Tract" to U- 3~974 SEP 12 2000 16:4G FR NICHOLS JACKSON DILLA4 965 0010 TO 9?2304?092 P.04×05 Ms. Barbara Wolenty September 12, 2000 Page 3 Haul Corporation or a partnership to develop the same. Thus, prior to entering into the contract, it is clear that Denton Tap Development, LLC was aware that a proposed zoning change would be forthcoming with icgard to the "U-Haul Tract". It is our position that an argument based on investment-based expectations would not be successful against the City with regard to thc U-Haul Tract for the reason that the property owners were well aware prior to June 7, 2000 of the anticipated zoning issues. On or about July 28, 2000, a member of our fn'm was able to contact you and discuss zoning change proposals and concerns you had over the proposed change in zoning for the tracts of land owned by Denton Tap D~velopment, LLC. Over the period of thc last forty-five (45) days we have discussed with you the proposals which have been earlier in this letter as well as numerous telephone conversations, Let me assure you that at no time did I commit the City Council to take any proposed action, We did indicate to you that the staff did conceptually agree with a proposal to work with you regarding Planned Development standards. Because there has been no site plan or plat presented for review concerning the proposed uses on Denton Tap, as indicated earlier, the staff was uncomfortable. Based thereon they were willing to leave the "LI" zoning in place on the U-Haul Tract. In addition, the staff would recommend that the "HC" zoning, which does permit the "restaurant" use subject to an "SUP" and the proposed office/bank building, on Denton Tap. The City Planner has indicated before they would seriously consider a Planned Development on any parcel of land within thc City if the required site or concept plans, with elevations, as per the requirements in Section 39 of the Comprehensive Zoning Act, a copy of which is enclosed for your examination regarding site plan review. Also, as you indicated in your letter of September 11, 2000, an "SUP" is required for a restaurant use. For this reason, we are proposing to go ahead with the "HC" zoning. Thc restaurant use which you propose will in fact be subject to an "SUP". The City staff has previously made recommendation for similar use across the street, however, due to thc close proximity of residences at the previous Burger King site that application was denied. Again, we reiterate, wc cannot make any guarantees, enter into any contracts, or indicate to you with any absolute certainty of the actions of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. We can and have pledge to you that we would work and cooperate with you to bring about fruition of your desires to develop the land on Denton Tap as well as to do so in a manner which conforms to the Gomprchcnsive Zoning Ordinance and to the Master Plan of our community. It does appear that while our goals are different that the two are not incompatible. I trust this will clear up any misunderstanding that you and I have concerning the issues surrounding this or other matters involving the Denton Tap Development, LLC and the property located within the City of Coppell owned by your client. 359'/4 SEP 12 2000 1G:4G FR NICHOLS JACKSON DILLA4 9G5 0010 TO 9723047092 P.05×05 Ms. Barbara Wolcnty September 12, 2000 Page 4 Thank you for your attention to this matter. contact us at your convenience, REH/cdb Enclosures cc: Mr. Gary Sieb If you have any questions please Very truly yours, NICHOLS, JACKSON, DILLARD, 31;974