Alexander Ct-CS070809
(2/10/2010) Ken Griffin - Re: Hawkins letterPage 1
From:
Clay Phillips
To:
Ken Griffin
Date:
8/9/2007 6:56 PM
Subject:
Re: Hawkins letter
Ken,
I will definitely use you letter. Let's find a time tomorrow to visit even if only on the phone. Thanks for the
help.
Clay
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Griffin
To: Clay Phillips <CPHILLIP@ci.coppell.tx.us>
Sent: 8/9/2007 5:35:51 PM
Subject: Hawkins letter
Clay
I attached a letter with a couple of changes (feel free to use any, all or none of my suggestions). The main
change is in the extra inlets. His main issue is that they are not needed and he would like to allow the
water to just flow into the intersection. The problem is that the water does not know that it should turn and
it could go straight into someone's house. I won't go into great detail, but our Subdivision Ordinance
states that our drainage design generally conforms to the City of Dallas Drainage Design Manual. The
CDDDM states "To minimize water draining through an intersection, inlets should be placed upgrade from
an intersection".
I didn't include that technical information in your letter, I just stated that it's our responsibility to protect
citizens.
This should really be fun when we get to discuss it at Council.
ken g
(2/9/2010) Ken Griffin - Hawkins letterPage 1
From: Clay Phillips
To:ddodd@njdhs.com; Ken Griffin
Date: 8/9/2007 11:48 AM
Subject: Hawkins letter
Attachments:hawkins-alexandercourt.doc
Please review when you get the chance. I ouwld like to send it tomorrow.
Mr. John Hawkins
6003 Sunderland Drive
Colleyville, Texas 76034
Mr Hawkins,
I am writing in response to your letter dated August 7, 2007 regarding the Alexander
Court development. I must say that I was somewhat surprised by several of the issues
you raised. It is the opinion of the city staff that many of the items you now want to
discuss with the City Council were agreed upon with the city’s engineering staff and your
engineer. In fact, your plans have been approved after they were resubmitted with the
changes we required and your engineer agreed to make.
The City Council will be prepared to hold your hearing on August 28 as was agreed to
yesterday in conversations between your attorney and the City Attorney’s office. It was
our understanding that the only issues to be appealed were: 1) the application of the
City’s floodplain ordinance prohibiting you from spoiling dirt in the floodplain, 2) tree
mitigation calculations, and 3) issues regarding proportionality, specifically the
requirement to construct the sidewalk on Denton Tap, the Roadway assessment Fee, and
the Park Development Fee.
It now appears that you wish to reconsider every almost aspect of the development that
was discussed in our meeting on July 19. As such, I feel compelled to respond to each of
the additional engineering issues you raised in your letter.
Rolled Curbs
Rolled curbs can indeed be accepted provided the adequate space is provided for parking
and unimpeded vehicular movement. Our engineering staff continues to believe the
rolled curb design requires 32’ back-of-curb to back-of-curb given the specific design
issues associated with the rolled curb application. Your comparison to fire lanes is
somewhat flawed. While it is true that fire lanes are only 24 ‘ wide, this total width
remains unobstructed since it is illegal to park in a fire lane. The streets in Alexander
Court will be used for resident and visitor parking. Our experience suggests that the 28’
back-of-curb to back-of-curb with the 24’ gutter-to-gutter you desire using rolled curbs
would result in vehicular parking extending further into the roadway than takes place
with standard curbs due to the wider gutter appearance and feel associated with rolled
curbs. We can accommodate rolled curbs only if the required space is provided.
Extra Inlets 3:1
The drainage requirements called for in the City’s plan review of the subdivision are
necessary. The improvements in question will become City property. The City will be
required to maintain the drainage utility in perpetuity. The City will also be the entity
that unhappy homeowners contact for relief should the improvements you want us to
allow prove to be inadequate in the future
Raised Building Pads & Required Slopes
The City takes a similar position regarding the necessity to raise the building pads on
certain lots and to require certain grading slopes on certain lots. You were offered other
solutions regarding how to handle slopes and elevation changes in the development,
including the possibility of using retaining walls. It is my understanding that you chose
not to employ other possible solutions and you continue to disagree with the City’s
requirements. For similar reasons stated above related to the drainage improvement
requirements, the City has confidence in our professional engineering staff opinion that
the requirements regarding building pads and grading slopes are necessary to avoid future
problems.
Concrete Caps for Bethel Road Water Line Cuts
The requirement to install concrete caps on the water line cuts on Bethel Road is standard
practice and can be found in our standard construction details. You have already been
given permission to open cut the roadway to perform water utility improvements. We
would normally require boring the roadway at a much greater expense to the developer.
You are correct that Bethel Road will be improved in the future. However, the exact
timing of that improvement is unknown. The concrete cap requirement better ensures the
City that the roadway will not deteriorate prior to the improvements being made.
It is not unusual for a developer’s engineer and the City engineering staff to disagree.
However, as stated above, the City’s responsibility for maintaining improvements and
managing citizen expectations long outlasts the responsibility of a developer. As such, it
is the opinion of the City’s professional engineer upon which the City relies to make
these types of decisions.
Our staff and City Attorney’s office continue to believe the requirements placed on your
development are prudent, necessary and within the scope of the authority of the City. I
know of no additional compromises that the staff is authorized to make or would agree to
make at this time. You will have the opportunity to discuss these issues with the City
Council on August 28. Feel free to contact me should you wish to discuss the matter
further.
Sincerely
Clay Phillips