HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-05-281
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL MEETING
of the
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
of the
CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS
at the
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN STREET
GRAPEVINE, TEXAS
MAY 28, 1983 - 7:30 p.m.
In re:
CLAIM OF VESTED RIGHTS
by
MR. FREDERICK BRODSKY
eoucy
nAt7Tn C RAMC P - CF.RTTFTF.D SH T
618 COPPER RIDGE - RICHARDSON, TEXAS 75080
214-234-0110 or 2319723
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X 0 F E X H I B I T
S
EXHIBIT
DESCRIPTION
PACE
Al
Meeting relating to Pirport
19
2000 Project - Frederick
Brodsky's calendars
A2
PAWA Winkelmann & Associates,
19
Inc., Letter, April 30, 1985
A3
Summary of documents and
20
correspondence relating_ to
provision of utilities to
Airport 2000 Project
A4
City of Grapevine Letter,
21
December 6, 1984
A5
Frederick Brodsky, Letter,
22
December 26, 1984
A6
Summary of amounts paid by
22
Frederick Brodsky to
developing and marketing
consultants for Airport
2000 Project
A7
Proposal to International
24
Investment Advisors for
Professional planning and
design services, February
18, 1983
A8
Preliminary concept for a
24
prestige office park develop-
ment immediately north of the
D/FW 'Regional Airport
A9
Preliminary master plan
25
and site anal -osis
A10
Summary of correspondence
27
from Frederick Brodsky
concerning_ Airport 2000
Project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X O F F X H I B I T S
(Continued)
EXHIBITS DESCRIPTION
All
Memorandum from Doris Jeker,
Dated September 29, 1982
Al2
Holiday Inns, Letter,
November 23, 1983
A13
Rendering
A14
Multiple Graphs
A15
International Investment
Advisors, Letter, October
28, 1983
A16
International Investment
Advisors, Letter, June
13, 1984
A17
International Investment
Advisors, Letter, June
13, 1984
PAGE
27
28
28
41
52
73
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R E S E 14 T
Board of Zoning Adjustment:
Mr. Doug Lamb, Chairman
Mr. Gerald Thompson
Mr. Gary Tischler
Mr. Ron Troy
Mr. Bill Waldrip
City Staff:
Mr. John Boyle, City Attorney
Ms. Joy Carroll, Planning and Zoning_
Administrator
Mr. Tommy Hardy, Director of Community
Development
Mr. Marlon Smith, Consultant to the City
Also Present:
Mr. Frederick Brodsky, Applicant
Mr. Kirk R. Williams,
Geary, Stahl & Spencer
Counsel to the Applicant
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
MR. LAMB: I would like to call this special
Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting to order Please,
convening Tuesday, May 28, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers of the City of Grapevine at
413 Main Street. With regard to the oath of truth
and all of the people who are speaking tonight I
will administer the oath as the witnesses come
forward and speak on behalf of the circumstances.
I will read the Order of Evidence. I think that
everyone has a copy of this but I will read it so
that everyone will know in what order the evidence
is going to be presented tonight in this case.
First,of all, the city staff will present
their evidence and any staff reports. Number 2,
the applicant presents his evidence including
any initial statement if desired. Number 3,
objectors present evidence including initial
statements, if desired. 4, Board members may
question city staff, applicants and objectors
witnesses. 5, the city staff may question applicant
and objectors witnesses. 6, applicant may question
city staff and objectors witnesses. 7, objectors
may question city staff and applicants witnesses.
8, rebuttal by city staff. 9, rebuttal by applicant
and 10, rebuttal by objectors.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
All right, Board of Zoning Adjustment to
conduct a public hearing relative to application
BCA 85-09, submitted by Mr. Fred Brodsky, Section
69-L Vested Rights, whereby Mr. Brodsky is requestin
his 131 acre tract located west of State Highway
121, north of the Hilton Hotel, be developed under
the former I1, Light Industrial District require-
ments instead of the present HCO, Hotel Corporate
Office requirements.
Tommy, you indicated that the city staff
and the city attorney had some information to give
us first.
MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chairman, members of the
Commission, the City, during the hearing, will be
represented by myself, John Boyle, City Attorney,
and special counsel for zoning matters, Mr. Marlon
Smith.
Under the order of evidence as provided
for under the rules the city does not plan on
offering any testimony but would submit certain
city documents that have relevance, in our judgment,
to the case. The documents themselves, or the
make-up of the documents, have been previously
reviewed orally with the attorney for the applicant.
The documents we would offer are all part of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
r,
official city record and are to be incorporated into
this record.
The first one we would offer is Ordinance
84-31, which is the ordinance that was introduced
during the portion of the hearing relative to the
question of the timely filing of the application,
which ordinance rezones the subject property under
the current and existing ordinance to HCO.
We would also offer City Zoning Ordinance
82-73, which is commonly referred to as the
Green Book Ordinance, and Ordinance 84-16, which
was a substantial amendment to Ordinance 82-73 that
includes and incorporates Section 69 which is the
requirement relative to vested rights upon which
this case is beina heard.
We would also tender into evidence
pursuant to Section 69 of the Vested Rights
Section resolution 83-34, which is the moratorium
resolution reflecting that the subject property
was included within 83-34 and City Resolution 83-40,
which is an amendment to the 83-34 moratorium
resolution.
I believe that this is all of the matters
under this that the city would propose to submit
as evidence, or that we will submit.
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0
MR LAMB: Thank you. Mr. Brodsky, or your
counsel.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission, my name is Kirk Williams and my address
is 2800 One Main Place, Dallas, Texas 75250.
Needless to say, this is an important issue, as
far as we are concerned.-- This is a relatively new
procedure. In fact, I think that this is the first
case that has come under your vested rights ordinance.
We feel that we have furnished a substantial amount
of information to your staff and to you to review.
If there are specific questions, please do not
hesitate to ask me or stop me during the presenta-
tion to review them, or we will submit ourselves
along with the property owner Mr. Brodsky at the
conclusion of our presentation for any questions
you may have. we'll attempt to summarize in as
short a fashion as is physically possible the
documents that we have that we wish to submit into
evidence and attempt to proceed to a reasonable
resolution of this matter.
Before we get started, I would like to
ask, are all of the members of the commission voting
members?
MR. LAMB: Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
MR. WILLIAMS: Very good. The reason I was
asking, it is important to us, and I know it is
important to you, as to how this matter is resolved.
It will take a vote of four of your five members
and will require a degree of attention as it
spans a series of years historically as we analyze
this site and it is a matter that we think is very
important to each of us.
As I had indicated, Mr. Fred Brodsky
purchased the property, talking about the 131 acres,
back in July of 1980 and -- yes, sir?
MR. LAMB: Excuse me, I think we had better
swear you.
MR. WILLIAMS: You are right.
(Witness sworn.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Would you like for me to go
back through?
MR. LAMB: No, I think that's all right.
You were just making a statement at that point. I
think we are okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: As I was beginning to say,
Mr. Fred Brodsky, who is present in the audience
and will be submitting himself for statement
purposes later in this meeting, acauired the
property in July of 1980, 131.342 acres that has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
been previously described. When that property
was purchased it was purchased with a partner, an
investment partner. When Mr. Brodsky was ready
to start. his developments of the site the investment
partner elected not to be involved in the long-term
planning and development of this site, and as a
result Mr. Brodsky bought out his investment partner
in September of 1982. That is really when the
story begins, although there has been substantial
communication with your city staff prior to
September of 1982, our development process was
initiated at that time.
As I had indicated, Mr. Brodsky
purchased, or bought out his investment partner,
and at that time erected a sign on the site denoting
Airport 2000. The name itself connoted long-term
planning. It was a long term goal. We are talking
about a development that might take as far as the
year 2000. It was a long range vision for this
portion of the city.
We recognized that it was going to take
a long time to develop and immediately went to work
to put toaether a planning team that had experience
and that had the ability to tackle- this type of
project, The 131 acres in its development form would
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
allow, under various phases of development that
we would propose, over six million square feet of
development exclusive of Parking structure. So,
it wasn't something that was going to be accomplished
overnight, and we recognized that, as I think the
city did in numerous conversations that they had
with Mr.Brodsky.
In February of 1983 the architectural
firm of HOK submitted a proposal to International
Investment Advisors, a development entity that was
headed by Fred Brodsky. In essence, it was being
submitted to the owners of the Property for planning
purposes, and it*consisted of several phases. The
first phase was site analysis. You will see a lot
of graphic documentation that was prepared over a
couple of years that will show you the various
planning phases that this went through. It was not
something that was arrived at with little thought
and it was something that literally grew as it
continued to be analyzed and revised.
The site analysis that was originally
done by HOK back in 1983 consisted of a location
evaluation, site access, topographic study to
review the drainage situation. It was specifically
reviewing the development standards under your Il
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in
Light Industrial Zoning classifiaction, the zoning
on the property at the time. There will be evidence
showing that there were building heights that were
reviewed, evidence showing that noise contours
relative to the airport were taken into considera-
tion, as well as very serious consideration being
given to utilities and how the property could be
physically serviced.
After the site analysis was done a
preliminary concept plan was prepared by HOK. it
created a building core of mixed uses, hotel,
offices, restaurants, retail uses, and around that
core was ten to fifteen building sites that could
be developed and marketed to individual purchasers
depending on the market conditions at that time.
After that massing study and that
planning process was accomplished the HOK architects
prepared a master plan and site analysis that got
down to more specific matters, such as, site
coverages, to densities and to specific site
circulation.
From the very beginning, looking at the
site and getting into the concept plan and into the
master plan, it was fine tuning a project that was,
needless to say, going to be changed over the years,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ll
but one that would he master planned. Consultants
were hired by HOK with the specific authorization
of Mr. Fred Brodsky. From a traffic standpoint
the firm was PAWA Winkelmann & Associates, Inc.,
was hired, not only to review the traffic from a
site analysis viewpoint but also the thoroughfare
alignments and specific site access. Civil
engineers were brought on board to study the soil,
to do drainage analyses and to review the utilities
situation. That was Graham & Associates, Inc.
It would have been naive of us us to
go into the market without having done an economic
and marketing analysis. For those studies the firm
of Laventhol & Horwath was retained and paid by
Mr. Brodsky for the information that was furnished
to him. This was an attempt to create the master
plan for this dream that was Airport 2000.
In conclusion, renderings were prepared,
as is shown before you, and massing models were
prepared for discussion within the office, but
also for four prospective developers within the
site. As I had indicated earlier, conversations
had been initiated with the city as early as 1981
regarding this development. I think that your
city staff will acknowledge that there has been a
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
E
continuing dialogue for three or four years
regarding this specific site. Much of the conver-
sation was about utilities availability. Back in
1984, the fall of 1984, when the master plan had
been completed, there were discussions regarding
reservations of utilities. I understand from a
sewering standpoint, as well as from drinking
water availability, there was concern. There is
correspondence between Mr. Baddaker of your staff
and Mr. Brodsky concerning what would be required
to reserve capacity, recognizing and taking into
consideration the fact that this property was going
to be developed with high density mixed use.
On December 6th, 1984,'a letter of credit
was submitted based upon the calculations furnished
by Mr. Baddaker. The letter of credit was
furnished to the city in the amount of $235,834.00.
That letter, to the best of my knowledge, is
currently held by the city and is currently a valid
letter of credit, although I do recognize that there
is some discussion over whether or not that has
ever been accepted. We simply recognize and
represent to you that we have continued to acquire
that letter of credit on the open -market and it is
currently being held by the city. It is just a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
further evidence of good faith that we intended and
continue to intend to develop this site. It was
for that reason and for no other reason than that
that this letter of credit and that amount of money
was set forth.
When the property was rezoned in June 7
of •1984 the zoning was Il and it went to HCO.
At that time Fred Brodsky was the owner of the
property and he was in the planning process, I
think the documents will show, of developing the
entire 131 acres. Although there was substantial
reservation, and I don't know if any of you were
privy to those conversations, but there were
substantial discussions over the rezoning of this
property. Mr. Brodsky in fact went into the open
market and commissioned consultants to prepare a
mixed use ordinance, an airport mixed use ordinance.
I believe that from the information that I can find
out, you can substantiate it from your staff, there
was some encouragement from the staff to this
piece of property in a possibly different way than
other HCO properties because of the history of this
tract. An airport mixed use district was discussed
in detail, and for whatever reason, was never
adopted by the city.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
Those are some of the things that have
taken place since the zoning was changed in June
of 1984 and leads us to this hearing today. Based
on the preexisting investment back good faith
expectations we respectfully request that the vested
rights we are seeking be approved this evening
with an unspecified termination date. We recognize
that in your vested rights ordinace that it does
suggest that the construction should be completed
within one year of the recognition of the vested
rights. On a 131 acre tract it is naive of us
to stand here and represent to you, and I think it
is naive of you to believe that we could complete
construction. The project name, Airport 2000,
suggested that it was going to be a long-term
project. If the vested rights are recognized we
would respectfully request that the termination
date be left unspecified in order to allow this
project to become a reality.
The recognition of these vested rights
will allow the applicant to make available to
the city at no cost the right-of-way for 2499.
This right-of-way is up to 19 acres, it represents
a substantial investment, not only to the applicant
Fred Brodsky, but also a substantial investment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1S
from the city's standpoint.
I know that we become somewhat calloused
sometimes when a businessman goes into the market-
place and we say that those are the risks of doing
business, but I would like to draw your attention
to an analogy that I think may drive this point
home a little more clearly and to show where there
have been good faith efforts over a long period of
time with a reasonable expectation that the develop-
ment would be allowed from an equity standpoint.
That's what we're doing here, we're asking for
equity this evening, that from an equity standpoint
that there should be some alternatives available
as recognized by your vested rights ordinance.
If a family came to you and made the
following representations, we believe that certain
equities should be afforded to them. The situation
that comes to my mind is a family that has the
unfortunate situation of losing a father and leaves
a widowed mother, and if that family asks and
seeks to develop a duplex so that the mother could
be taken care of, maybe not within the home itself,
but on adjacent property, and if that family goes
into the marketplace and buys a piece of property
that is zoned for a duplex, it has those rights.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
It is a unique piece of property that allows the
kids to stay in the same school, to stay with their
friends. They purchase that piece of property on
the open market, they contract with an architect
to design a duplex and they contract with a general
contractor to build the house and they then find
out that the city is in the process of changing,
after all of those things have come about, changing
the development rights to allow only a single family
home. Then the whole reason and all of the
investment that was made is not a valid proposal,
it is not one that would suggest that those people
should be punished, and for a situation similar to
that vested rights should certainly be considered.
In a similar vein we have here a business -1
man who went into the marketplace willing to take
business risks of whether or not he would be going
to make a good investment or whether he would be
going to make a bad investment, and having to live
with that as an alternative. What he purchased
was development rights and we believe that the
information that has been presented shows that
there was a good faith effort to develop in
accordance with those development -rights and that
to change the standards of development after three
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
or four years of this process is patently unfair.
There is an alternative that is available, the
recognition of the vested rights, and this allows
several things to happen. It allows the developer
to develop not more than he came into the market-
place acquiring, but simply allows him those rights
that he acquired in the open market. This will
also allow the city to acquire something that is
important to it and that is important to us, and
that is the extension of 2499 by way of allowing us
to dedicate the right-of-way at that point in
time:
I would be glad to try and answer any
specific questions, but I would like to call at
this time Mr. Fred Brodsky. I would be asking him
a few questions and introducing some evidence. I
think that most of the evidence that he will be
introducing will be that which was submitted to
your staff. Then, we'll be glad to try to answer
any specific questions you may have.
MR. LAMB: I have a procedural question.
Should we not enter the exhibit in the record at
this time?
MR. WILLIAMS: We'd be glad to, but I would
like to go ahead and have Mr. Brodsky identify each
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one of them individually. That way, if you have
specific questions we could take them at that point
in time, sir.
MR. LAMB: All right.
(Witness sworn.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Brodsky, I am handing you a
document that is marked as Exhibit D and is entitled
Meetings Relating to Airport 2000 Project,
Frederick Brodsky's Calendars. Can you identify thi
document and tell the Commission what it reflects?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir. This is a summary
taken from my personal diaries of the meetings that
were noted in that diary related to Airport 2000,
and specifically those that were held with the
City of Grapevine and/or its staff.
MR. WILLIAMS: What are the dates inclusive
from your calendar there?
MR. BRODSKY: It begins in 1981 on February
18th, at 1:00 p.m. and it continues through 1982,
in particular starting September 8, which is about
the time that I acquired my partner's interest,
then goes all the way through '83 with quite a
series of meetings in 1983, basically almost
every month, and continuing through and culminating
on February 28th, 1985.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
MR. WILLIAMS: We would like to intro-
duce that document as Exhibit 11o. 1, Al.
(Exhibit Al marked.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Brodsky, I'll hand you a
document from PAWA Winkelmann dated May 3rd, 1985 --
excuse me, dated April 30, 1985. Can you please
identifv this document?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir. This was a summary
that was prepared at my request by PAWA Winkelmann
summarizing all of the meetings taken from Roy
Wilshire's calendar relating to Airport 2000.
MR. WILLIAMS: That would be Exhibit
E in the packet that was given to vou, sir.
MR. BRODSKY: That would be beginninq, by the
way, in 1982 and continuing through 1983 and
culminating on January 11, 1984.
MR. WILLIAMS: Was PAWA Winkelmann representing
you and Airport 2000 during this period of time?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: We would like to submit
the second document for reference as
Exhibit A2.
(Exhibit A2 marked.)
MR. WILLIAMS: "dr. Brodskv, I am handing vou
what has been entitled as Summary of Documents and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
Correspondence relating to provision of utilities
to Airport 2000 Project. Can you identify this
document?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir. This is a summary
taken from correspondence in my files relating to
the provision of utilities to the 131 acre site
that I own, beginning April 1, 1982, and continuing
on through January 31 of 1985.
MR. WILLIAMS: toe would like to offer
that into evidence as Exhibit P.3.
(Exhibit P.3 marked.)
MR. WILLIAMS: The fourth item that I am
handing you is a�letter from J. R. Baddaker to Fred
Brodsky dated December 6, 1984. Can you identify
this letter?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir. One of the criteria,
obviously, for developing Airport 2000 had to do
with the availability of utilities, and in a
continuing dialogue I had asked to be informed of
the per acre price for the utilities for the
131 acre site. This letter indicates that the
total pro rata cost would be $1800.26 per acre in
order to reserve utilities for this project.
MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to offer
this into evidence as Exhibit A4.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
(Exhibit A4 marked.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Brodsky, did you rely on
Exhibit A4 in the preparation of any letters of
credit?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to hand you a
document, No. 5. This is dated December 26, 1984.
Can you identify this letter and the attachments
thereto?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir. This is a letter
addressed to Mr. James R. Baddaker in response to
his letter to me, the prior submission, and it is
a letter of transmittal indicating that I have
enclosed a letter of credit which I am delivering
to you for the purpose of assuring myself that the
City of Grapevine will be committed to providing
2,000 gallons of water service and 2,000 gallons
of sewer service for each acre in my Airport 2000
project. These were the numbers that were taken
from the prior correspondence. The letter of
credit, if you were to take the 131 acres times the
$1800.26 would be consistent with the $235,000
that are contained in the letter of credit.
MR. WILLIAMS: We would offer into
evidence Exhibit A5.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
(Exhibit A5 marked.)
MR. WILLIAMS: I am holding Exhibit C which was
submitted to _your staff which is a summary of
amounts paid by Frederick Brodsky to development
and marketing consultants for Airport 2000 project.
Can you identify this document, Mr. Brodsky?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir. This is a summary of
the amounts that I paid to each of the consultants,
being, HOK, Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum for
planning; Laventhol & Horwath for their market study
PAWA Winkelmann & Associates for the traffic; and to
Graham & Associates for utilities. This does not
include the $5,000 fee that was paid for the letter
of credit.
MR. WILLIAMS: We do offer into evi-
dence Exhibit P_6, that being the summary
of amounts paid to consultants.
(Exhibit A6 marked.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Exhibit I in the packet that was
submitted to your staff is entitled, Proposal to
International Investment Advisors for professional
planning and design services and is dated Februar�T
18, 1983. Mr. Brodsky, can you identify this docu-
ment?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir. It was addressed to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
International Investment Advisors because HOK had
done work for International Investment Advisors pre-
viously. I am the sole owner and shareholder of
International Investment Advisors. So, I am in
effect the same as IIA, Inc., the legal Texas
corporate name.
This is dated February 18, 1983 and was
the basis of the three or four months negotiation
and discussion with HOK on the work that they would
do to plan for the development of Airport 2000.
MR. WILLIAMS: Was the work that's represented
in here a result of your buying out of your invest-
ment partners and initiating the planning process?
MP.. BRODSKY: Yes, sir. If you will notice
the date is early in 1983 after I bought out my
investment partners in approximately September of
1982. It took until February of 1983 to negotiate
an acceptable work letter which --
MR. WILLIAMS: Did it represent a portion of
the 131 acres or did it cover the entire 131 acres?
MR. BRODSKY: No. We only considered
developing the entire 131 acres.
MR. WILLIAMS: We would like to have
this document, Professional Planning and
Design Services dated February 18, 1983,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir. This is effectively
the result of all of the work that was done by
HOK, PAWA Winkelmann, Graham & Associates and
Laventhol & Horwath with the exception of the work
papers. This summarizes all of the effort put
forth into actually creating a development concept
for Airport 2000.
MR. WILLIAMS: What is the date of that
document?
MR. BRODSKY: This document was printed March,
in March of 1984. Actual preparation, it took
a while to get it printed, so it was actually
printed prior to,that, but it is dated March of
1984, and it covered the entire 131 acres.
MR. WILLIAMS: It does cover the entire 131
acres?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir, it does.
MR. WILLIAMS: We would like to have
this exhibit marked as Exhibit A9.
(Exhibit A9 marked.)
MR. LAMB: We already have a marking on this
of A2 as it was introduced at a prior hearing,
so we could have both markings on it.
MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely, we would
have no objection to that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MR. WILLIAMS: The tenth document that we are
offering into evidence is Exhibit B from your staff
packet, the Summary of Correspondence from Frederick
Brodsky concerning Airport 2000 Project. Can you
identify this document and explain what it represent
Mr. Brodsky?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir. This is a series of
letters of transmittal, basically, to different
individuals as of different dates concerning the
attempts to arrange financing for the Airport 2000
project. It goes through, well, it begins actually
on February 24, 1981 and continues through April 23,
1984, and there `are different notations there and
there are solicitations of investment partners,
discussions with development consultants reaardinq
the development studies for Airport 2000, specifi-
cally a solicitation of a hotel manager and develo-
per, and then one item I think is a copy of a refusal
by me to sell the property because I did want to
develop it, and still do.
MR. WILLIAMS: Do you have the letters that are
represented by this summary with you in case the
commission would like to see any of the documents?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir. You are welcome to
examine anv of the correspondence that is identified
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
and summarized here.
MR. WILLIAMS: We would offer this as
Exhibit A10.
(Exhibit A10 marked.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Exhibit K in your staff packet
is a memorandum regarding a property sign dated
September 29, 1982. _Mr. Brodsky, can you identify
this memorandum and tell us what gave rise to the
preparation of this memorandum?
MR. BRODSKY: This was immediately after I
finalized the buy-out of my investor interest in
the Airport 2000 project and I wanted to put a sign
announcing Airport 2000, a 130 acre prestige office
park, to solicit interest from developers in parcels
in the site.
MR. WILLIAMS: We would like to have
this identified as Exhibit All.
(Exhibit All marked.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Exhibit J in your staff packet
is a letter dated November 23, 1983 from Holiday
Inns addressed to Mr. Fred Brodsky. Mr. Brodsky,
can you identify this letter and tell us what they
advised by the correspondence?
MR. BRODSKY: The first phase that was
recommended by the consultants, the planning
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
M
consultants, in Airport 2000 included a hotel, and
so I went to the Holiday Inns and approached them
on a site. They expressed an interest. The
regional manager and the man who is responsible for
development for Texas came and visited the property
and this is their letter back to me indicating that
there is a long-term potential and that they would
be interested, depending on timing.
MR. WILLIAMS: We would like to have
this document marked and identified as
Exhibit Al2.
(Exhibit Al2 marked.)
MR. WILLIAMS: We have two pieces of documenta-
tion, or multiple pieces of documentation on the
easels before you. The rendering we would have
marked as Exhibit A13.
(Exhibit A13 marked.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Can you identify the rendering
that is to the left of the commission?
MR. BRODSKY: That is a rendering of what the
Airport 2000 project would like upon full develop-
ment and completion 'somewhere past the year 2000 and
represents the artist's conception of what the resin
of our planning efforts would be.
MR. WILLIAMS: Was it prepared as a result of
the efforts initiated by HOK?
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, it was.
MR. WILLIAMS: Approximately how old is that
rendering?
MR. BRODSKY: At least two years, I believe.
MR. WILLIAMS: Now, if we could have your
attention --
MR. BRODSKY: I'm sorry. I think that that is
more like a year and -a -half old. It would have
been done prior to the printing in March of '84 of
that blue book. So, let's say that it is about a
year and -a -half, approximately.
MR. WILLIAMS: If we could direct your atten-
tion to the flip chart and I could simply let
Mr. Brodsky identify what each of these pieces of
information are, essentially what they represent,
I would appreciate it. If you all have any specific
questions or suggestions you can stop us and we will
try to answer those. Can you identify what the top
document is that is presented here?
MR. BRODSKY: Let me just give a minute of
background on what all of these are. We had a
series of meetings wherein all of the consultants
attended. There were normally two or three people
at each meeting. From HOK it was normally personall
Roy Wilshire. It was Carroll Lilly from Graham &
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
Associates, and there were one or two people from
each meeting at Laventhol & Horwath that did the
market study, plus myself.
During the planning process which spanned
over a year from early '83 until as documented until
March of 184, we looked at a variety of alternatives
for the site and ou will see that each one of
these includes what our conception of 2499 was, or
the extension of Anderson Gibson Road, or Thweatt
Road as it was called then. We even took into
consideration a configuration for a direct interface
with International Parkway. These were always one
of the preconditions in our planning process, so
everything that you will see in this will have
FM 2499 through it.
In order to allow for future growth,
and we were told by the State Highway Department
that eventually 2499 would have to go below grade,
we put in a circle that would allow us to do that
at an_y level of elevation. So, we were planning
for the phasing of 2499 from a two-lane country
road to a 200 foot right-of-way highway and in
each of these you will see by the scale that 200
feet is reserved throughout our entire plan. This
was one of the last presentations that was done
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
and gave rise then to that rendering. This was the
culmination and pretty much the result of our
representative conclusions of what the highest and
best use for the property was.
Again, we looked at how much and what the
zoning ordinance requirements were based on Il
zoning, and so our only impediments were the set -bac
of 55 feet for Anderson Gibson Road. Again, it
specifies a 200 foot right-of-way for the future
dedication of 2499, and we have a 50 foot pipeline
easement which I tentatively agreed with Rosewood
would come down our mutual property line and we
would each contribute $50,000 for the total to
relocate that pipeline.
In this sheet it says, Il, Light Industria
a very flexible zoning category which permits
offices, hotels, motels and retail shops with no
height limitations, and this is what we based all
of our planning on.
By the way, this is the gross acreage
and we were looking at different alternatives for
the right-of-way. In this case it was 13.425.acres
that we were giving up for the FM 2499 right-of-way.
We did two noise studies. We did a
noise study in 1980 prior to my acquisition of the
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
property, and then when the airport announced the
two additional runways we had an updated study done
for us. This is the result, the two lines, the
existing noise zone and then a 1987 forecast based
on the two additional runways. You can see that the
vast majority of the property is in the B category
which would enable us to do exactly as we wanted to
do. It also says that the maximum height limitation
of the site is 860 feet on the northwest portion.
The maximum height elevation is 775 feet in the
southern portion. The height restrictions would
allow a building of approximately twenty-three
stories in the north and eighteen stories in the
south.
This, plus the previous chart that,
again, we relied on in order to go ahead with our
planning process, and I think that that is the
core of our vested rights issue tonight.
MR. WILLIAMS: These documents were prepared
during that 1983 --
MR, BRODSKY: '83 period of time.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- that '83 period of time?
MR. BRODSKY: That's right. We had extensive
soil tests done because of the expansiveness of the
soils in this area and the problems that Los Colinas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has faced with their development. This is a
summary, really, of the soil tests that were done
showing basically about seven different types of
soil throughout the property. I think that this
soil testing cost me somewhere in the area of
$5,000 or $5500.
This is what I think is called short
views, in other words, what people up to three
stories of height would be able to see from their
offices in buildings on the site and it is oriented
towards marketing the site. You have a road vista,
the short view to the treescape, the high points,
et cetera, but we do this for short views. There
is also another chart which may not be in the packet
but that was for long views.
MR. WILLIAMS: It's right here. We'll come
back to that one.
MR. BRODSKY: This shows that there are no
residential properties around us, that our views
are panoramic, a valley view, axial view of the
lake at five stories, Lake Grapevine, a view of the
Hilton, view of the dam, view of the site from 121,
a vista view and a view of the airport. So, we
really looked at what it would be like to be
situated on the site in an office building looking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
out.
Hydrology, which was important, mainly
because it is relatively a flat piece of property.
We identified the major ridge lines, minor ridge
lines, the flow, concentrated runoff, concentrated
flow, the virgin channel and the water bodv. There
is no flood plain on the site and approximately
68 acres to the west of the site drains to the site.
I might say that I gave copies of this to the
Rosewood Corporation, John Roark in particular,
because early on we started to cooperate on
information such as this so that our site could be
developed in a complimentary fashion. Okay, long
views.
Utilities. Graham & Associates prepared
this. It shows the location of sanitary sewers,
twelve inch water line right in front of the
property. We looked at electric, gas, water,
sewer and easements. The site is entirely within
the city of Grapevine's water and sewer jurisdiction
and it was at this point that we really started
talking to the city about making utilities available
in sufficient quantities for the Airport 200's
project, and you can see that in the correspondence
if _you track through that summary page. It says
ffE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
that a twelve inch water line is planned for
construction on the west side of State Highway 121
and the sewer east of State Highway 121 was being
negotiated with the developer who has begun
construction to develop an office park, sufficient
capacity will be available.
Surrounding development. We looked at
what would impact on this site and how we could
compliment that development, so, mixed density
residential growth up in Flower Mound, growing --
MR. WILLIAMS: For information purposes, this
is on an awfully large scale. Here is our site
right here for reference purposes. Very good.
MR. BRODSKY: What this was was where the
growth was coming from, short-term, intermediate
term and long-term. This is spelled out in great
detail in the market study that was done by Laventhol
& Horwath. But it shows that we are not -- office
park or flood plain all around us and there is no
residential planned or expected anywhere in our
vicinity.
We looked at access to our site and we
had access basically on three sides because of our
discussions with Rosewood. From the north from
Thweatt Road, Highway 121 and throuah Rosewood
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
property, and basically we were looking at compli-
menting each other. That was under discussion. So,
we even did some work early on as regards the inter-
change with State Highway 121 as is reflected here.
Proposed roadways. You can see that
2499 came right through the property and we did
work on an interchange on Thweatt Road and we did
work, as you can see outlined here on details
for a connection with State Highway 121. So, we
were cognizant of what we had to provide regarding
both the interchange with Thweatt and State Highway
121.
We also, as part of the fee to PAWA Winkel
mann, went to predict traffic to the year 2000,
because we were developing on a long-term process
and we needed to make sure that our interior roads
and our interchanges were designed to handle both
present and future traffic volumes. So, based on
COG information and based on their own studies PAWA
Winkelmann prepared these estimates of traffic
counts for the year 2000.
We also looked at where we could have
potential traffic hazard zones and then we did an
awful lot of work to see how we could mitigate or
reduce those traffic hazard zones over here and that
ERA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
led to further work on the State Hichwav 121 and
Farm to Market Road 2499 interchange. It shows
where -- where the traffic is coming from, fifteen
percent from the north, almost thirty percent from
the northeast and five percent from the east and
forty-five percent coming up through the airport.
We did, as I say, that first sheet that
you saw represents the culmination of an awful lot
of discussion. We could plan this particular tract
of land much more effectively from a land use
point of view and get a higher yield to work out
some alternatives in the alignment, so this was an
estimate of the different alternatives and their
implications on acreage that would be lost or Grained
based on different alignments of 2499. In this
case we would lose 40 acres. Here we would lose
37.21 acres, and here we would lose 36.61 acres.
We did this considering internal roads, and this
was a point that I made at the Citv Council meeting
the other night, that you were going to lose
between internal roads and frontage roads and 2499
a tremendous amount of right-of-way and buildable
area. All of this obviously needs to be considered
in how you approach a plan, realizing that you need
to satisfy traffic too.
MI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
q
Here is another_ scheme, just showing
different approaches, with a much higher density
than we really wanted, but a cluster around an
oval. This was a different internal configuration.
We must have _gone through, I would say, thirty or
forty different alternatives in trying to plan the
interior of the site takina into consideration not
only maximum land use but visibility and access,
internal traffic, external traffic, et cetera.
These are all different plans that we have done.
Here is another one getting, again, closer to the
ultimate situation that we decided on with an
overpass here as opposed to the circle. Here is
just another alternative working with Rosewood
Corporation taking the right-of-way through them.
Basically this was the one we started working on
with an interchange through Thweatt Road, an._
interchanae at 121, coming through our property,
et cetera, breaking up the tract into two subtracts,
or one of 70 acres and one of 46 acres. This was
what we really decided to concentrate on and then
we started focusing on individual building sites.
All of these alternatives, by the way,
are colored and were done by architects and it was
a very long term painstaking expensive process.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
Once we basically decided on the alignment of
2499 we went through to see how manv building sites
we could get on the property that would fit well
together, that would compliment each other and
that for which we had sufficient parkina in that
it looked like a quality development. In this one
we had a retail center here, a major complex in
the center which is on the alignment of Internationa
Parkway. That view bisects this particular site.
Here is one with a Galleria type project
in the back because we had the highest height
potential back there. This would be developed
sometime in the late 1990's with the first site
being here and here to take advantage of the
frontage and access.
We put in landscapes in some and in the
book you will see that we even, when 2499 would
be submerged or go below grade, we had planned the
night view so that we would have lights coming out
of the bottom of this depression with water
fountains and everything so that everyone flying
in and out of DFW Airport, from the north at least,
would have a beautiful view of a circle with
different colors of lights coming out at night.
That's basically it.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an
There were a lot more. These are just
representative of some of the planning that went
into the years effort from early in 1983 until early
1984, but the summary of all of this thought and
all of the planning and all of this time in this
investment is reflected in this blue book.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure physically how
we would do this, but we are certainly willing to
have these marked as the next numbered exhibit, if
you elect to. It is a representation of the effort,
what we believe to be the good faith effort that
has been made to appropriately plan this site.
Frankly, I think,this is the sort of thing that
your city likes to see happen, long range plan-
ning that gives you the opportunity to structure
your city, rather than to simply react to zoning
cases. We would be glad to have these submitted
in whatever form you see fit to incorporate them
in the record. We would respectfully request
that they would be marked and entered as exhibits
at this time.
MR. LAMB: We have marked the rendering as
Exhibit A13. Why don't we just mark those --
MR. WILLIA"iS: -- collectively as Exhibit A14?
MR. LAMB: -- collectively as Exhibit F_14.
W1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
(Exhibit A14 marked.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Brodsky, were all of these
plans prefaced on a 131 acre development?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir, they were.
MR. WILLIAMS: Did you own the property at the
time of the rezoning from I1 to HCO on June 7th of
1984?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, I did.
MR. WILLIAMS: Were you developing the property
in accordance with the I1 standards?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir, I was.
MR. WILLIAMS: Did the development give you
a reasonable expectation, an investment back
expectation, of a reasonable development and a
reasonable rate of return at that time?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, it did.
MR. WILLIAMS: Do you believe that the current
zoning deprives you of that reasonable rate of
return on your investment?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir, I do.
MR. WILLIAMS: Are you asking the Board of
Zoning Adjustment to extend the vesting period for
construction beyond the one year time period?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir, I am. I consider the
magnitude of this project really to be something
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
that would necessitate something longer than a
one year period of time.
MR. WILLIAMS: I think that that pretty much
completes our direct testimony. We'll be glad to
try to answer any specific questions that you may
have. In conclusion, we will respectfully request
that you recognize the good faith effort, the
planning that has gone into this project and
allow it to be developed in accordance with the
standards that it was purchased under. Needless to
say, we have a personal interest. We believe that
it is better for us financially, it would be naive
of us to tell you otherwise, to develop under the
Il standards. It would give us a better rate of
return and, frankly, allow us to do a better
project.
This does give the city an opportunity
to continue its planning on a long-term basis for
growth potential from a thoroughfare standpoint.
We see no adverse effects from the grantinq of
this vesting. We don't believe there will be anv
flood of requests as a result of any other changes
in the area. These cases need to be taken on a
case-by-case basis. It is an equitable hearing
that we are seeking this evening.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4'�
Unless you have any other questions, we
would simply request that you acknowledge our
vested rights and allow us to develop this over
an unspecified period of time.
MR. LAMB: I`m not certain, but at this point
in time I believe that your witnesses should be
presented. You have a list of thirteen or fourteen
different witnesses. Are they here and available
to appear at this time?
MR. WILLIAMS: We elected not to have them
appear, but according to your record and according
to your rules and procedures we were required to
furnish you notification of any people that we
would possibly be bringing. Unless there are
specific pieces of information that you seek from
them we do not have them available. If you want
information from any one of those and you elect
to continue this hearing we would be glad to make
them available. We do have our extensive files
and correspondence and we may be able to furnish
that information, but we have no other witnesses
at this time.
MR. LAMB: Okay, at this time I would like to
suggest that we take a five minute recess, if we
could.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
(Brief recess.)
MR. LAMB: Mr. Brodsky, thank you and your
attorney for your presentation. At this point in
time we are going to continue on with presentations
from other interested parties.
MR. BRODSKY: Thank you.
MR. LAMB: Our next item on the auenda indicate
that objectors could present evidence including any
initial statements. If there are any of those
present who would like to make a statement with
reaards to this property in the case before the
board I would request that you do so at this time.
I don't have any,preconceived notion about how we
get you up here, other than you might raise your
hands, and whoever does so first is more than
welcome to speak.
At this time I will ask if there is anyone
who would like to make any type of presentation or
present any evidence or discuss anything with
reqards to this case? This isn't going to be this
easy, is it?
At the present time I see that there is
no one who has indicated that they wish to present
either evidence or a statement at this time, so we
will continue on with questions from the board
IC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
members to the staff, the applicant or any witnesses
This may be, Mr. Brodsky, where we ask questions
of a specific witness at this time.
MR. TROY: Mr. Brodsky, what is the estimated
total cost of your development project?
MR. BRODSKY: Under the 11 scenario, and using
1984 dollars, you are looking at something in the
area of a six hundred million dollar total, and
basically I arrived at that by taking the six million
square feet times $100 a square foot.
MR. TROY: In a development project of that
magnitude isn't it normal to do noise studies and
soil tests and things along those lines when you
are locating in an area around an airport?
MR. BRODSKY: Which is what we did, yes, it
is. The results of the charts not only -- as I
said, we did the noise studies twice. We did them
prior to my acquiring the property and then when
the other two runways for the airport were announced
we did check the original noise study to make
sure we weren't incurring any additional exposure
as far as noise was concerned. In the same way,
we did a very extensive soils survey.
MR. THOMPSON: Sir, when were you first
notified of possible zoning changes to this Pronerty
DU
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
MR. BRODSKY: We heard some comments that were
made in the early, well, the second quarter, early
in the second quarter of 1984, and actually we
called at that time the city hall and were told
very specifically, yes, there were some zoning
changes being considered, but verbatim, those would
not affect our property. That's my recollection of
an exact quote, and so we put it on the back burner
and didn't really follow it up, and literally
forty-eight hours before the hearing on the zoning
we accidentally found out about it, because to my
knowledge, we never received any formal notification
of the zoning change that was sent to us at our
offices, and none ever showed up subsequently.
So, when we found out about it, Phyllis
Wheeler, who is on our list of witnesses, notified
me and we both came to that night's meeting and
did a very brief presentation. If I remember, it
was a joint session of the City Council and the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
MR. LAMB: Did you at that time indicate to
them that you had received no notice? You also
had a conversation with someone, and I'm going to
ask you if you recall the specific name of the
person that you had the conversation with that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
d7
indicated there would be no affect on your zoning
on your particular piece of property?
MR. BRODSKY: Well, we made a presentation,
and quite candidly, I think we requested that we
not be zoned at that point in time. We explained
that we were -- as a matter of fact I think I
brought this rendering with me during that hearing -
that we would not be allowed under the proposed
zoning of HCO to develop Airport 2000, that we had
worked with the city over two and -a -half or three
years period of time and that we respectfully
requested that our tracts not be considered as
part of the rezoning process at that time.
MR. LAMB: Again, I`m going to ask you, do
you recall the name of the person who specifically
indicated to you that you would not be affected
by the zoning process?
MR. BRODSKY: My recollection was that it was
Jim Hancock.
MR. THOMPSON: According to Section 69 in our
zoning book here it says that the rezoning beqan
August 2nd, 1983. I guess that I am directing this
to the city staff. Did you all not begin sending
out notices somewhere after that to the people that
were going to be rezoned?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HARDY: The actual notices were sent out in
February or March, somewhere along in there.
Notices were sent out --
MR. LAMB: March of --
MR. HARDY: 184.
MR. WILLIAMS: Is he to be sworn?
MR. LAMB: Yes, as a matter of fact. Thank
►sem
(Witness sworn.)
MR. THOMPSON: When did you send the notices
out?
MR. HARDY: First of all, I don't want.to
say when we sent'them out, but we can get those
dates, but those notices were sent out. We got
the list of property owners from TAD, the ones they
actually send out for their tax lists, and we had
a letter from them certifying that that was the
property owners list at that time. Now, if they did
not get that, I don't know.
MR. TROY: Was that sent out by certified mail?
MR. HARDY: No.
MR. LAMB: Just regular?
MR. HARDY: Right.
MR. THOMPSON: One other question, is this
Highway 2499 definitely routed through your
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
property now? I understand that there has been
some conflict on where it is going to come through.
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, there has been a lot of
discussion about that. We had planned to let it
come through the property, and as my attoney
stated, I'm willing, and I have stated this
repeatedly, I am willing to donate at no cost
the right-of-way for a 200 foot request from the
State Highway Department and up to 7 acres for an
interchange.
My understanding of the status of the
right-of-way is as follows. One, I cannot afford,
in my own mind economically, to dedicate more than
19 acres and I can't afford to dedicate the 19
acres because I'm not able to do what I hoped to do
and planned to do and want to do with the property.
The present HCO zoning, which has been taken up in
another section of the City of Grapevine government,
limits me not only to 100 feet, but has dramatically
changed coverage, set -backs. For example, they have
even increased the perimeter set -backs all around
the property to where that would take 10 acres by
itself.
So, out of 131 acres I will onlv be able
to develop under the limitations of HCO zoning
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
approximately 32 acres. I can't afford, and I can
go through the numbers with you and I would be more
than happy to show you how they are derived, but
I did it with Tommy in the room one day, including
Mayor Tate, Jim Hancock and Tonv Wiles. I'm not
sure whether Tony was there, Tommy. Do you remember,
MR. HARDY: I don't believe so.
MR. THOMPSON: Pardon me. You said that you
would be able to develop 32 acres out of the 131
under HCO?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: Under the HCO?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir, and I went through
those numbers with the city administration and I
showed them what the HCO zoning had effectively
done to my ability to develop that property. That's
why this issue here is just so critical because
it really takes away an awful lot of my development
rights that existed at the time I acquired that
property.
MR. LAMB: At one point, and I'm looking
for the actual date of the situation, you indicated
that you had received an offer to sell the property,
but that your intent was to develop the total
property and that you did not want to sell at that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
�7
■
time. Assuming that this was a legitimate offer,
can you give me a possible purchase price that was
proposed to you at that time? If you could do it
in terms of square footage it would be helpful.
MR. BRODSKY: I really don't recall. I don't
recall. I could hazard a guess, but it wouldn't
be an exact answer, so --
Someone from my staff who is not sworn
recollects that it was about $4.00 a foot, so that
would make the value of the property somewhere in
the area of about $25 million dollars, and that
would have been sometime in 1984. I think you have
a summary.
MR.
LAMB: Do we have in the summary an
indication
of the date and the circumstances
when
you declined
to accept that offer?
MR.
BRODSKY: Right, about $25 million
dolars
at that
time.
MR.
LAMB: If possible, could we have a
copy
of that
document entered into the record?
MR.
BRODSKY: Sure.
MR.
WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, could you
tell
me the number
of that document?
MR.
LAMB: I am looking for i -t.
MR.
BRODSKY: No, it was $3.00, about $17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
million dollars.
MR. WILLIAMS: If we could, we'll get
Mr. Brodsky to speak into the microphone
and identify this letter.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Brodsky, if you could, would
you identify for me the letter dated October 28,
1983 and tell me what is attached to it, I would
appreciate it?
MR. BRODSKY: This is a contract of sale from
the Cambridge Companies, trustee and/or assigns,
to me offering $3.00, or approximately $17 million
for the 131 acre tract, and it is executed and dated
October 25, 1983.-
MR.
983.MR. WILLIAMS: What was the 'zoning on the
property in October of '83?
MR. BRODSKY: I1.
MR. WILLIAMS: If we could have this
marked as the next exhibit, we would
offer it into the record.
MR. LAMB: A15?
MR. WILLIAMS: A15, yes, sir.
(Exhibit A15 marked.)
MR. WILLIAMS: This is comprised of a
cover letter to Mr. David Davidson from
Karen Brian and a contract of sale as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
referenced by Mr. Brodsky.
MR. BRODSKY: By the way, they submitted that
offer and came back with a much higher offer and I
refused to counter or to fix a price for the
property because it just wasn't for sale. So, all
we did was write the cover letter just announcing th
return of the contract.
MR. WALDRIP: Am I correct in assuming that
no physical construction has taken place on the
property at this time?
MR. BRODSKY: That is correct.
MR. WALDRIP: Okay, what are your plans as far
as a date to start construction, if this would be
granted?
MR. BRODSKY: I think that a lot right now
depends on the availability of utilities, and
obviously you can't begin construction unless you
have utilities. To my knowledge, and perhaps Mr.
Boyle could direct me, or maybe Tommy can, I don't
believe that an agreement has been finalized with
the City of Coppell to provide utilities to this
particular property, and a lot would depend, quite
candidly, on when those would be available.
MR. THOMPSON: I notice that.in your blue book
you had made some provisions, maybe, for some single
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
family or residential areas in your development.
Is that not correct?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir. This was inconsistent
with the Il zoning, and it wasn't single family in
that sense. It was high-rise residential, which
again, remember that the Laventhol & Horwath market
study did recommendations as to the highest and
best use. In the last phase of the project in these
two towers over here overlooking the lake and golf
course they felt could be utilized at that point in
time, realizing_that that would be a last phase to
be developed, could be utilized as potential high-rise
residential.
MR. THOMPSON: But you have rejected that since,
or is it still in your plan?
MR. BRODSKY: Well, it is inconsistent with
the zoning that was in effect, so they could only
recommend it.
MR. LAMB: Could you shed some light regarding
Exhibit A9, which is the Preliminary Master Plan and
Site Analysis, there is a lot of drafts throughout
this list, but it looks like it is dated november
13th, 1984., Could you explain the differentiation
between the front copy which has March of '84 and
these draft stamps located on the majority of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
pages throughout the study?
MR. BRODSKY: This is a very complicated report
with an awful lot of numbers and tables, what we
were going through at the time, and the final report
that was given to some potential investors in Europe,
and I ran out of copies, so the only thing that we
found was what was in effect close to the final
draft of the ultimate report.
We went through in-house and it took us
ten weeks to do this and to verify all of the
arithmetic calculations and all of the references
in this document, which I must say just took a long
time to go through that, and until it was done and
typeset and proofed, everything was just stamped
draft. I might add too, that if you look at the
stamps on that report of March of 1984, the proofing
took just a long time to get this done because of
the complexity of the numbers involved.
MR. TISCHLER: Was this prepared in-house or
by someone else?
MR. BRODSKY: No, sir, the end result of the
HOK study in which is included all of the consultant
reports. So, for example, you don't have tabs in
the reproduction, but in this book which you have as
an exhibit there is a developers statement, executive
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
summary, there is a master plan as done by HOK,
and then there is a market study done by Laventhol
& Horwath, and then there is an appendix. So, there
is a compilation of all of the consultants work
boiled down in this book.
MR. WALDRIP: Mr. Brodsky, was this book ever
submitted to the city staff before it was submitted
to us here as evidence or as an exhibit?
MR. BRODSKY: I don't -- to answer your
question, I don't know, number one. My understanding
from the representation of the consultants in their
logs indicates that every aspect that is contained
in here was reviewed with the city staff and that
is proven, I say proven, I think that that is
reflected by the time sheets and the entries that
were made, for example, by Roy Wilshire and Graham
& Associates. They went through the relative aspects
of their studies with city staff, and those meetings
are reflected in the calendars.
MR. WALDRIP: But there was never any formal
presentation of this as one complete text?
MR. BRODSKY: No, sir, not to my knowledge.
MR. WALDRIP: I would also like to hear
something that you touched on a minute ago, some
further comments, from your perspective as to what
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
the limitations of the HCO would place on the
property, that you are objecting to?
MR. BRODSKY: From a development perspective
standpoint, a developer's point of view, and let
me say too, I think that Kirk made the statement,
we're looking for the highest and best use of the
property, and that goes without saying, but I would
hope that given the effort that has gone into this
study and of working with the city for this period
of time, that our desires and interests would be
consistent with those of the City of Grapevine.
This is an isolated property, isolated
property with Rosewood and my property together
being isolated. We have on the east boundary
State Highway 121 that is going to be widened and
improved. We have the Hilton Conference Center on
the south and we have a wide flood plain area on
the west and on the north, and so we are isolated
from any residential development at all within the
City of Grapevine's territorial jurisdiction.
Cities today, you had some people from the
library out soliciting money in canisters today,
this location will increase the City of Grapevine's
tax base, your sales revenue, your hotel tax, it
will enable you to do a wide variety of things that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
you need for your community, and at the same time
give me the opportunity to take a developer's risk,
a real estate risk, that is not small in today's
market, to build somethinq that I think makes sense
and that I am willing to put my name up on it for th
loan with a personal guarantee for a substantial
amount of money.
The HCO ordinance limits me from the
highest and best use of this property substantially
for a variety of reasons. One, it imposes a 100 foo
height limitation. The intent, the way it was
explained to me, and I don't presume to interpret
the wishes of the City of Grapevine about this
matter, but I can only tell you what was told to me,
is that no one wanted an office building looking
down on a residential area, and I can understand
that, but we don't have any residential areas
anywhere near us. I could build a fifty story
buildinq and I wouldn't look down on any homes or
any apartments or any townhouses, or any place where
anyone lived.
Two, the airport, which would be the
controlling body from a health and safety standpoint,
will allow me to go up to seventeen to twenty-three
stories in height, and if you assume thirteen feet
KI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
per floor, you can do the arithmentic calculations,
but certainly I could go up well beyond 200 feet
on the north side of the property and still be
within the safety factor as mandated by the Regional
Airport Authority. So, I fear, you know, that I am
being limited severely to a hundred feet within
the HCO ordinance.
Two is ground cover. The HCO ordinance,
and Tommy, I haven't memorized this ordinance, so
if I misstate something, please correct me, but my
recollection is that it allows me to develop only
forty percent of the property. Of that forty
percent, by definition, that includes not only the
office buildings or the retail center or the hotel,
but all parking and structure parking, so as opposed
to being able to develop something in the area of
eighty percent under the light industrial ordinance.
So, there is a reduction by half, if you will, of
how much volume across the board I can put in my
131 acres.
The next is the setbacks, and where set-
backs are important and necessary for certain types
of development, a 75 foot perimeter setback where
you are giving up 200 feet of right-of-way takes up
10 acres all by itself of the 131 acre tract. So,
ME
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Z
the setbacks, the way they are defined, imposes, I
think, a very severe limitation beyond what I have
seen, and we have done a comparison of suburban
Dallas zoning, of Irving and Plano, and under our
old ordinance and new ordinance it imposes a severe
restriction on us. The impervious area --
MR. WILLIAMS: Insofar as that setback is
concerned it will not allow even surface parking,
so it is literally not usable space. I think that
was one of the_noints that wLh stated, that we lose
10 acres of developable land. Is that correct?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, thank you. The impervious
area is one of the other items that is very.
specifically defined in the ordinance. We did a
plan of the sites, which I don't think I have with
me, but I did it to show all of the green areas
that we had planned. That rendering, at the oblique
angle that it is, shows something that is much
more dense, or appears to be much more dense than it
is That represents the six million square feet. tha
I would hope to build on the site, but we did a
tack down color rendering of the site, and we
outlined office buildings, and I think it is red,
parking surfaces in another color, streets in anothe
color, and then, open areas. There is a substantial
Wil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
amount of open area in this plan. That's what
people want today, that's what helps office buildings
lease space. To do a downtown Dallas in this
location really doesn't make sense. It has to be
open and it has to be airy, and that's why we
concentrated on the views, both short and long-term.
If I was going to pack as much volume in on the
site as I possibly could, I could tell you what the
views would be, they would be the next office
building period. That is not the intention,
because that would lose in this market.
So, to answer your question, my recollec-
tion of the limitations are those of height
restriction, the combination of the setbacks, the
ground cover and the definition of impervious
areas, and to my recollection those are the four
restrictions that combine, because if you get hit
with one or the other, you know, you try to work
something out to develop and you always run into
another restriction, and it makes it very difficult,
and in this case impossible to realize the highest
and best use potential for this property which is
isolated by natural barriers and really could be a
focal point for the city of Grapevine and could
produce a tremendous amount of revenue as a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tax base item and sales tax item.
MR. LAMB: You indicated that you have taken --
I'm going to make sure I understood you accurately.
You took this Exhibit A9, your pro forma, to over a
hundred investors. Is this the document that you
utilized?
MR. BRODSKY: No, sir. There is a summary
proposal --
MR. WILLIAMS: Let's make sure you
have the right one.
MR. LAMB: Which exhibit was it?
MR. WILLIAMS: Exhibit A8.
MR'. BRODSKY: The preliminary concept.
MR. TISCHLER: At the present time you are the
sole owner of this property?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir, I am.
MR. TISCHLER: What kind of reaction have you
had from the hundred investors you proposed that to?
MR. BRODSKY: Well, you can see the corresponden
stops, because the first question has to do with the
status of 2499 and utilities and zoning, and when I
couldn't answer those questions I stopped marketing
the property because of the investment that would be
required. I'm just not able to do anything as far
as looking for investors until these three items are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
defined and resolved.
MR. LAMB: Obviously, you're not going to do
this yourself, you're going to need the investors
to provide the financial backing to make the project
go?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir, that's right.
MR. TISCHLER: If this request for vested rights
is denied, will the offer for the 19 acres for 2499
be revoked also?
MR. BRODSKY: Unless we can modify the HCO
ordinance in a way that allows me to realize the
economic potential of the site I cannot afford to
dedicate the 19 acres for 2499.
MR. TISCHLER: Indirectly, you're trying to
tie the 2499 donation of the land, or the right-of-
way, to the zoning?
MR. BRODSKY: I would say really directly,
not indirectly at all, because, quite candidly, the
offer to dedicate the right-of-way was made when I
had light industrial zoning. I don't think there
is anything wrong with the city getting and having
what it wants and needs and there is anything wrong
with the developer getting what he wants and needs.
It's done and negotiations are carried out all of
the time between cities and developers or land owners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
in order to negotiate a fair exchange. I'm willina
to give something up to get back what I had. I'm
not even asking for anything additional. I just
want to get back where I was. Then, if I get back
to where I was I'm going to dedicate the 19 acres
at no cost. I'm not asking for anything more than
what I originally had and what I have worked to
accomplish through all of this planning process.
MR. TISCHLER: You mentioned that there would
be townhomes included in this.
MR. BRODSKY: No, sir. No, sir.
MR. TISCHLER: There will be some kind of
residential then?,
MR. BRODSKY: No, sir. I said that the
recommendation was made by the market study people,
Laventhol & Horwath, to include high-rise residential
in this last phase of the project, which was
rejected. In other words, their mission was without
restriction to recommend what the highest and best
use of the 131 acres would be, and in the last phase
they recommended to me that a high-rise commercial to
be built sometime in the late 1990's, high-rise
residential. That's part of the report, but as I
say, it was inconsistent with the zoning. Their
mission was to find the best and highest use for the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
property.
MR. WALDRIP: So, this Exhibit A9 is really a
recommendation of what you planned to build on the
site, not really or necessarily a final site plan?
MR. BRODSKY: That's right, because a site of
this size and this complex evolves over a period of
time. In this case the idea was to start here with
an office building and a hotel and then to work
backwards to maximize the utilization of the site
and the. infrastructure, and you can't, and I don't
know anybody and I'm certainly not smart enough to
plan a twenty year program for a particular piece
of property, it's` an evolutionary thing, so you
need to know where to begin and the timing and the
cost and then work through your plan, which is
really subject to change over a long period of time,
because it's a twenty or twenty-five year project.
MR. WALDRIP: So, under, like, Section 46 or
47, under existing zoning, codes, you haven'_.t filed
a master development plan or a site plan of any type
on this property?
MR. BRODSKY: No, sir, I have not.
MR. TISCHLER: On one of the pages of Exhibit 14
I believe it indicated, I may be wrong, but there
would be some residential.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
MR. BRODSKY: High-rise residential. In other
words, these two towers here, if you'll look real
closely, are labeled condominiums. This phase is
a Galleria type project which has retail, office,
high-rise residential, hotel, and it is all labeled.
That was the planning people, Laventhol & Horwath,
recommendation, to have high-rise condominiums over-
looking the golf course and lake, but not townhouses
or single family houses.
MR. WALDRIP: To what extent have you had to
borrow funds and expend funds as necessary to do the
planning that you have done up to this time?
MR. BRODSKY:' So far I have paid for both the
planning and the buy-out of my investors out of my
own pocket with no borrowed funds, and that includes
the two and -a -half million dollars to date to my
investors. The only debt against the property is
the original debt from when I acquired it in 1980
and one last payment to my investors. ,
MR. WALDRIP: Okay, thank you.
MR. TISCHLER: City staff, what is the time
frame as far as utilities being available to the
site?
MR. HARDY: I think that is largely going to
be up to the developer. He is the one that is going
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
F -7
to have to pay to get those utilities there, water
and sewer. What it's going to take to serve this
project, I don't know, and that is going to be up
to the developer.
MR. BRODSKY: I was told that that was the
amount of $1800.26 per acre, which is what I have
on deposit at the city, according to the letter that
you have from Mr. Baddaker, and I have already put
that money up to get utilities to my site. I mean,
I'm ready to go. That is a live letter of credit.
MR. TISCHLER: In Exhibit A3, Summary of
Documents and Correspondence Relating to Provision
of Utilities to Airport 2000 Project, Item 10 is
a letter dated January 15, 1985, from Jim Baddaker to
Fred Brodsky. The last sentence, according to Mr.
Baddaker, various developers are planning projects
in the northeast area of the city which would place
demands on the water and sewer systems which under
present circumstances the city cannot meet. That's
what I'm referring to. At what point in time will
the city be able to meet these demands?
MR. HARDY: As far as the adjoining properties,
I don't know, but it is my understanding that there
is water and sewer available for Mr. Brodsky's tract,
and I thought that he had paid the money for those
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
r) R
services. To get his property served would be up
to him as far as getting water and sewer lines to
that tract for service, not to the city.
MR. TISCHLER: But, based on what I'm reading
here, the city can't supply it to start off with.
MR. HARDY: Not all of the area, no. We don't
know how it's all going to develop at this time.
MR. WALDRIP: All right, Tommy or Mr. Brodsky
correct me if I'm wrong, but if this were to be
granted what you had planned to do would be to, as
you came up with specific site plans, a site plan
on each specific need would be submitted for.
approval before construction was to start there?
MR. BRODSKY: Basically, that's right. I think
that the ordinance, Tommy correct me if I am stating
this incorrectly, but I think your ordinance
requires that a site plan be submitted in advance
and be consistent with the zoning ordinance.
MR. HARDY: No, sir, it would not. If they
granted you the Il, the right to develop under the
old Il Light Industrial, the requirement for a site
plan would not be required. That was not a require-
ment of that district.
MR. WALDRIP: Was there any requirement? How
did you get a building permit under the old Il.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
MR. HARDY: You submit a building permit in
compliance with all of the requirements. It does
not go to site plan review.
MR. BRODSKY: I might say that as far as
utilities, if I could back up just a moment, it was
my understanding that utilities would be made
available by the city in sufficient quantity for
2000 gallons per day per acre for sewer and each
and for water each, pending receipt of an assessment
to provide those utilities to my property in the
amount of $1800.26.
Now, Mr. Boyle has drafted a letter saying
that this would be conditional on the city being
able to perform, which I understand, but my response
in putting up that letter of credit was specifically
in response to Mr. Baddaker's letter to me saving
that I could reserve that volume for capacity for
both sewer and water for the payment of that amount
which is, in my mind anyway, what I have done by
putting up the $235,000, because in the letter it
states that it is on a first come first serve basis,
and I wanted to make sure that I could go ahead and
develop my property and that I would not fail because
of lack of utilities.
So, I nut up my money, I think, before
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70
anyone else did. I don't know of anyone else to
this day, Tommy, who has any deposit up.
MR. HARDY: Not to my knowledge.
MR. BRODSKY: I'm the only one who has put up
money to reserve my allocation, pro rata allocation,
of sewer and water so that I could go ahead and
develop and not be held up because of a lack of
utilities.
MR. LAMB: When you first proceeded to the
Planning and Zoning Commission to tell them about
potential zoning circumstances for your property,
that actual rezoning was done during the rezoning
process when the moratorium was announced, then you
were aware of the fact of the possibility of
rezoning of your property. Can you tell me, again,
what transpired in those meetings with the Planning
and Zoning Commission with regards to rezoning the
property, because they obviously indicated, and I'm
saying obviously, because it's my understanding
that they indicated that the zoning was not goinq
to be changed, it was going to stay at HCO. Can
you shed some light on the discussions that were
held at that time?
MR. BRODSKY: One, I never met with P&Z directly.
MR. LAMB: You met with --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
MR. BRODSKY: Other than informal presentations,
the rezoning of the City of Grapevine was a
monumental process and there were a lot of parts
and pieces that had to be worked out and considered.
Basically it was my understanding, and again, Tommy,
correct me if I am wrong, that on a blanket rezoning,
which was what was going on in the City of Grapevine,
the objective was to get the new ordinance resolved,
finalized and introduced, because the moratorium was
expiring, and all of this had a certain time frame
in which it needed to be accomplished.
Then, the procedure was set up subsequently
to handle individual cases or appeals such that
someone could present their case, and this is what
we did. Part of that process was the meeting that
Tommy attended with Mr. Hancock, Mr. Baddaker and
Mr. Hart in which it was suggested that, and I think
Tony Wiles was in that meeting too, it was suggested
that Rosewood and I jointly develop a zoning
ordinance for our properties, our respective
properties, 262 acres of isolated land from most
of the rest of the community. At that time we came
up with AMU, or Airport Mixed Use, to reflect the
fact that this property was isolated at the airport.
We did that based on certain very tenative discussion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
with city staff, Mayor Tate, Jim Hancock, Mr.
Baddaker, et cetera.
We hired a professional consultant to do
that for us and we also hired a consultant to do a
comparison for us to assure that we were in line
with other cities that are known for their planning
and zoning, Plano being one. So, we compared what
we were asking for in the AMU ordinance with different
communities.
The letter of June 13, 1984, to Ms.
Sharon Spencer says, thank you very much for your
consideration of our zoning request during the
recent public hearing regarding the revised Grapevine
zoning ordinance. We appreciate the council and.
the commission's careful and deliberate approach to
such important land use decisions. We feel that the
city's suggestions that we work in conjunction with
Rosewood Properties to outline a zoning classifica-
tion appropriate for the mixed use development
envisioned for this airport area is a sound one.
In response to this suggestion yesterday we had a
very productive meeting with Mr. Jim Baddaker,
Mr. Tony Wiles and Mr. John Roark of Rosewood Proper-
ties. We will continue to work closely with the city
staff and our land planners over the next few weeks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
to prepare a draft ordinance that will meet both
the needs of the City of Grapevine and the objectives
of our projects. We look forward to presenting the
results of these efforts to the Planning and Zoninq
Commission and the City Council in the near future.
Thank you again for your attention to our applica-
tion. That was signed by me and by Phyllis Mueller,
who at the time was my director of planning.
So, on June 4th, after meetings that were
held, it was suggested that Rosewood and I
cooperate to develop a separate zoning ordinance to
staisfy the highest and best use for our respective
properties, and that is what we attempted to do
by submitting the AJ4U ordinance, which effectively
was rejected by Tony Wiles in his comments on that
ordinance.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, would
you like to have that letter introduced?
MR. LAMB: Yes.
MR, WILLIAMS: We would introduce
this letter as Fxhibit A16.
(Exhibit A16 marked.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, we would like to
introduce into evidence not only the letter that
was written to Chairperson Spencer dated June 13,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
1984, but also an identical letter that was written
and sent to the Honorable William D. Tate under the
same date with the same information, simply
confirming the status of the comments and the working
of the neighboring properties to develop a Mixed
Use Development in accordance with the suggestions
of planning and of zoning and of the city council.
So, we would like to have each of these marked as
separate exhibits, even though they are identical
letters. One is to the Chairperson of the Planning
and Zoning Commission and one being to the mayor.
MR. LAMB: All right.
(Exhibit A17 marked.)
MR. LAMB: So, the response of Mr. Tony Wiles,
planner, is that right, was given to you approximate)
how long after you went before the Planning and
Zoning Commission?
MR. BRODSKY: It took about two weeks to
prepare our recommendations on the zoning ordinance
and I think Tommy suggested that we draft it in
the same form as the existing ordinance which would
follow the outline that was existing at the time
to facilitate consideration on a like -to -like basis.
Then, it took four months, my recollection, from our
previous hearing with Tony Wiles to come back to us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
with his comments and observations on our submission.
MR. WALDRIP: Mr. Brodsky, in your Exhibit A9,
Preliminary Master Plan and Site Analysis for this
tract of property, we have already discussed the
residential development that was mentioned in there,
and you noted that that would not be consistent
with previous zoning so that that would not be
included in the plans for the site. Are there anv
other provisions in this plan that are no longer
consistent with your plan, or that are no longer
consistent with your current plans?
MR. BRODSKY: I don't believe so,, unless --
I'm not sure, Tommy, whether the old ordinance
allowed for free standing restaurants.
MR. HARDY: Yes.
MR. BRODSKY: Then, to my knowledge, that
was the only exception, and those two towers would
be office condominiums rather than high-rise
residential. To my knowledge, it was the only
exception to the then existing zoning ordinance
that was proposed by our consultants.
MR. WALDRIP: Assuming that utilities could
be provided within a reasonable time period, then
you were still planning on sticking somewhat with
the construction time you provided in this document?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7F
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir, I was. I mean, in
something like this, if you read the Dallas Mornina
News on Sunday, it's doom and gloom, something like
this, you need to take time to plan. It is too
large of an investment to just go off -- you know,
you have to pick your time carefully and I think
that that is indicated by the detail in the market
study there that was done by Laventhol & Forwath
that is part of our over-all report.
But, yes, subject to the marketplace and
financing it was our intention to stick with that
plan, because we had worked so hard to refine it
through all of the alternatives that it was the
one that made sense to us. We did leave in a lot
of flexibility, but only to the extent that you
can predict a twenty or twenty-five year development
schedule, this is what we felt very comfortable
with on a considered basis by everyone involved in
the project.
MR. WALDRIP: So,.it's my understanding that
in accordance with your market study and what is
going on at such places as Valley Ranch and Los
Colinas that you could actually wait until a time
somewhere in the area of 1988 or 189 to start
construction?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
MR. BRODSKY: That's right, and I think in
my recollection it was '87 or '88 for Phase 1,
but I might also point out that to begin construc-
tion in '87 or '88 for the first phase that
utilities have to be in place. The lead time there
was about nine or twelve months, if I recollect.
So, we would have to actually back up from
the date that we actually intend to put a shovel
into the ground for our buildings and go backwards
somewhere in the area of fifteen months or so.
If we are talking '87 or '88 it would be 186 or
'87. You have to have your plans, your architect
needs to do his work, everything else needs to be
in place before you put a shovel into the ground.
Normally, the lead time on something like that,
as I said, is somewhere in the area of -- well,
utilities would be the biggest thing in this area.
MR. WALDRIP: As I understand it, Tommy, at
that time, if he was ready to proceed, there would be
no requirement for him to submit a detailed site
plan?
MR. HARDY: That's right.
MR. WALDRIP: -- to the city for approval?
MR. HARDY: It would not be required, no.
MR, THOMPSON: That bothers me a lot. Have you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reviewed any other sections of the current zoning
ordinance that would better suit your needs for this
property?
MR. BRODSKY: To my knowledge, there is not
an alternative. We did look at several proposals
and the closest was HCO, given the restrictions
that I enumerated.
MR. LAMB: Mr. Brodsky, at anytime during the
process of meeting with the city staff and with each
of the various members of the planning circumstances
you were involved with, with Tommy, Mr. Hancock
and Mr. Baddaker, at anytime, was there any type of
Positive affirmation of your circumstances, other
than to continue to provide information to the city
to develop this zoning?
MR. BRODSKY: I take it that that is a good
question, and, yes, there was. There was constant
feedback, positive feedback. If you look through
my calendar you will see that I had several meetings
with the city and I did that on a regular basis to
show Mr. Baddaker in particular, and Mr. Hancock
both, Tommy I met only recently at the time the
zoning was being considered but both Mr. Hancock,
especially Mr. Hancock, and Mr. Baddaker were fed
information from our planning process as and when it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
reached a point that it made sense.
For example, Mr. Hancock I gave a copy
of this rendering at the time that it was done, but
even before that I came in here with a model, a
styrofoam model of the whole project layed out on
a large sheet of paper that showed all of the
streets and everything else and I showed them to
him because the architect had brought it in. We
discussed the visual aspects of it and how it would
build up, et cetera.
So, I think that both of those gentlemen
were kept reasonably well informed of our planning
process and given data as and when it was developed
that we felt would help them plan, which was the
whole purpose of this. I can't do this project in
isolation. It is such a substantial property that
it needs the cooperation of staff and of all of the
elements within the city. So, we started doing
that early on, our consultants did that early on,
so that we just weren't out there by ourselves
running our own numbers or doing our own things
without consideration for what the city wanted and
felt that they could support and supply.
This is why you will see the series of
meetings for Graham & Associates on utilities, with
W
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Roy Wilshire on traffic and transportation, of HOK,
of Laventhol & Horwath. They all had a continuing
series of meetings with different members of staff
of the City of Grapevine.
MR. LAMB: I notice that you have Mr. Hancock
down as one of the witnesses but yet you declined to
have him here to present a statement this evening.
I would like to hear from Mr. Hancock his represen-
tation of those meetings specifically refuting or
making positive affirmation of the recollection
that at one point in time that he indicated to you
that there was no -.effect on this particular piece
of property. I would like to have him available
for that.
MR. BRODSKY: Sure.
MR. LAMB: I notice that he is not available
this evening, at least I don't think he is, but I
would like to question him in that area.
MR. BRODSKY: Sure. I certainly have no
objection.
MR. LAMB: But from a procedural standpoint I
have a little difficulty with that because he is not
here. I assume that he was notified of the meeting
and that he would be a potential witness this
evening?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BRODSKY: Well, we decided not to call
anyone. We could have been here, I think, for a
week. We decided to summarize everything and
provide you with as comprehensive a summary as
possible with all of the documentation. If we
wanted to pass the weight test or the paper test
we really could have flooded everyone with a bundle
of paper, but we decided not to do that.
Again, my recollection is exactly what
I told you. Very clearly, I think that that can
be corroborated by Phyllis Mueller, but.I don't
want this deliberation to get into, you know, you
said this or I said that kind of thing, because I
think that there is enough factual evidence available
to you that we have presented that clearly indicates
from my personal point of view and from my
consultant's point of view a continuing dialogue
with the City of Grapevine.
MR. LAMB: One of the parts of the ordinance
is the reliance made upon statements by staff or
agencies of the city, and it's very difficult to
refute that statement if that person or agency is
not present to make statements.
MR. LAMB: I'm going to ask for a
five minute break at this time, if I could.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
MR. BRODSKY: Sure.
MR. LAMB: I'd like to have a five
minute recess.
(Brief recess.)
MR. LAMB: If we could reconvene, please.
We are in the process of asking questions by the
board members. Any further questions fo Mr. Brodsky
by anyone in this particular case that you would like
to ask? Okay, city staff now has opportunity to
question any of the witnesses or applicants or
objectors at this time, if they so desire.
MR. SMITH: There are just a couple of little
points.
MR. LAMB: I think I need to swear
you in, Mr. Smith.
MR. SMITH: You need to swear me in?
MR. LAMB: I'm going to swear everyone
in tonight.
MR. SMITH: All right.
(Witness sworn.)
MR. SMITH: Just a couple of points to clear up
with Mr. Brodsky. Maybe you would want to come
back up there, sir. I understand what you are
telling us about the letter of credit that would
be for a reservation of a right to receive a certain
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
amount of water and sewer services, is that correct?
MR. BRODSKY: That's correct.
MR. SMITH: And is that designed for a specific
project, or is that available to you no matter what
you build on the property?
MR. BRODSKY: I assume that it would be
available to me, regardless of what I put on the
site.
MR. SMITH: So, that wasn't keyed to any
particular proposal?
MR. BRODSKY: Well, in my mind it is, because
my plan was Airport 2000, so I had nothing else
planned on the site, if you will.
MR. SMITH: But, if you planned and built
something else, you could still use that same
committment?
MR. BRODSKY: I have no plans to do it, but if
you want to make that supposition, yes, I could.
MR. SMITH: Something I still don't understand
about this document that bears all of these draft
stamps. The draft stamp says it is November 13,
1984, to be used only for management discussion
purposes, engagement is incomplete, this draft is
subject to final review and possible revision. Whose
draft stamp is that?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
MR. BRODSKY: HKO planning group.
MR. SMITH: And they put it on the document?
MR. BRODSKY: That's correct.
MR. SMITH: Did they put it on the document
when they delivered it to you?
MR. BRODSKY: There was never a final printing
done on this document. In other words, I used what
was presented there as a proposal based on all of
this work to prospective investors, but the binders
were printed and the document was never printed
because 2499 was a large question mark at that time.
That was the first of a series of three items,
the 2499 alignment and then zoning and then the
utilities that precluded doing somethinu in final,
final form, if you will.
MR. SMITH: Well, what I'm trying to get at,
Mr. Brodsky, the date that this bears, draft of
November 13, 1984, is that the time at which HOK
had reached a stage of having the document in this
state and gave it to you in this state?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, obviously.
MR. SMITH: You told us that this is a long -rang
twenty-five year project, so is this just kind of a
concept of how the property might develop?
MR. BRODSKY: It is a plan for the development
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
'R5
of this particular site.
MR. SMITH: But didn't I hear you say that
some parts of it might change?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir, that's right. I can't
predict twenty-five years into the future.
MR. SMITH: But you're not asking to have the
board approve the use of the property for the
development of a project configured just exactly
the way it is shown on your exhibits, are you?
MR. BRODSKY: No, I'm not. I am asking for a
reinstatement of my original zoning, which is
light industrial zoning.
PIR. SMITH: You're asking the board, you're
asking this board, to give back the Il industrial
zoning for that property?
PSR. BRODSKY: That's richt.
MR. SMITH: To restore those restrictions to
this property?
MR. BRODSKY: Based on vested rights, that's
correct.
MR. SMITH: And to allow you to build on it
anything that the Il zoning would otherwise have
permitted?
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, sir.
MR. SMITH: Is that right?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
MR. BRODSKY: That's correct, but my concept
for what that is, however, is based on an awfully
large expenditure of a lot of man hours, which is
what you see here.
MR. SMITH: Has the architectural desiqn work
been done for any of this project, Mr. Brodsky?
MR. BRODSKY: Specifically for a building?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
MR. BRODSKY: No, sir.
MR. SMITH: Have construction drawings been
done for any buildings?
MR. BRODSKY: No, sir.
MR. SMITH: Have you done any drawings for the
installation of roads for the water and sewer lines
on the property?
MR. BRODSKY: Other than the planning process
that was done and the -- and the grading and the
soil tests and utilities studies that were
specifically done, I would say that besides putting
a shovel in the around that we have done everything
that we needed for the preplanning of the site.
MR. SMITH: Have you done construction drawings
for the roads, for example?
MR. BRODSKY: Not knowinq where the roads
or where 2499 is going to be, no, we haven't, but
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
R7
we have done, as well as presented to the city
council, a tremendous amount of work down through
the ultimate configuration of the interface with
International Parkway, which by the way is about
twenty years out according to the State Highway
Department to go through all of the three or four
phases we are talking about so, we phased it out,
but the original phase for the road, for example,
is a two-lane Farm to Market road.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Brodsky, you don't have any
c ontract outstanding to deliver a building to anyone
on this site, do you?
MR. BRODSKY: No, I don't.
MR. SMITH: You haven't executed any leases
for anyone to occupy any structures on this site,
have you?
MR. BRODSKY: It's not possible to execute
leases without having the utilities, your zoning
and 2499 resolved. Now, I would be a fool in the
marketplace going to negotiate a lease without being
able to deliver, and right now I'm not in that
position to deliver.
MR. SMITH: You don't even have yet the
specific plans for your first office tower and
hotel, do you?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RR
MR. BRODSKY: When you say, plans, we have
a concept. That would be affirmed by Holiday Inns,
which we approached them, which was in concept
acceptable to them and to me. The next step would
be to go into a contract with an architect. I
can't provide utilities and I can't go to the next
step.
So, all of your questions are obviously
predicated upon having everything in place and I
don't have everything in place. I don't have my
zoning, I don't have my utilities, even though I
have put up my money to the city to reserve my
utilities, I can't get them at this point in time.
MR. SMITH: You don't have a contractual
committment to provide a hotel with the Holiday Inn
folks, do you?
MR. BRODSKY: No, sir, I couldn't commit to
that because, again, that would require a time frame
and I can't deliver. I would be exposing myself
to quite a problem.
MR. SMITH: I don't have any other
questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. LAMB: Tommy, do _you have any
questions?
MR. HARDY: No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
R9
MR. LAMB: There being no other questions
from the city staff, Mr. Brodsky, it would be your
turn to question the city staff if you have any
questions.
MR. WILLIAMS: No questions.
MR. LAMB: As we had no objectors, there should
be no questions in that area. Rebuttal is available
to the city staff if they wish to make any statements
in that area at this time.
MR. BOYLE: Your Honor, we would like to
introduce Ordinance 70-10 which is the base
ordinance that Il zoning is incorporated in. I
intended to do that initially and did not do so.
I would like to note that into the record, that
70-10 is a part of the record and does incorporate
Il zoning.
MR. WILLIAMS: Could I ask, is that the Il
zoning that was in force and effect as of the
acquisition of this property in '80 and in the
planning process in the 184 time frame?
MR. BOYLE: It is the same ordinance and I am
certain it was not amended, the base portion of it
was not amended during that period.
MR. WILLIAMS: Very good, thank you.
MR. BOYLE: That's all.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
n n
MR. LAMB: Mr. Brodsky, your turn if you have
any comments.
MR. BRODSKY: No.
MR.LAMB: At this point I'm going to declare
the public hearing closed and we will be rendering
a decision on this matter sometime within the next
thirty days for _getting a decision to Mr. Brodsky.
MR. WALDRIP: I think that the time period is
forty days.
MR. LAMB: Excuse me, our time period for
rendering a decision is forty days.
MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chairman, we would advise the
board, and I'm sure you're aware of this, but you
do have that time period in which to deliberate
and make your decision. It is necessary for you to
deliberate in a public body in a meeting that is
called and advertised under the Open Meeting Act.
MR. WILLIAMS: We would just like to have notice
of when that deliberation would take place.
MR. BOYLE: I would just like to advise you to
let the city staff, Mr. Baddaker or the city secre-
tary or the secretary of the board to notify Mr.
Williams, if that's satisfactory.
MR. WILLIAMS: Very good.
MR. LAMB: You will be notified. I believe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
we have other business now, the oaths of office.
(Whereupon, the proceedings
transcribed herein were
completed.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
STATE OF TEXAS X
X
COUNTY OF TARRANT X
This is to certify that I, David Chance,
reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the
time and place set forth in the caption hereof,
and that the above and foregoing 91 pages contain
a full, true and correct transcript of said
proceedings.
Given under my hand and seal of office on this
the day of A.D.? 1985.
David Chance, Certified
Shorthand Reporter in and
for the State of Texas,
#1006.