Loading...
Alexander Ct-CS070810010) Ken Griffin - Hawkins letter Page 1 From: Clay Phillips To: ddodd @njdhs.com CC: Ken Griffin Date: 8/10/2007 8:44 AM Subject: Hawkins letter Attachments: hawkins - alexandercourt ken.doc David, I need to send this today. Let me know if you need anything changed. The intent is not to respond in a technical fashion. You can correspond with his attorney on legal points. Also, we need a letter from you or Bob regarding the hearing process as soon as possible so Council does not feel unprepared on the 28th. Unfortunately, the agenda for Tuesday is already complete and there is no opportunity to Breiz them about this under any exec.session item. Thanks for your help. Clay Page 1 of 1 Ken Griffin - Re: Hawkins letter From: Ken Griffin To: Clay Phillips Date: 8/10/2007 8:17 AM Subject: Re: Hawkins letter Clay I'm in the office all day today. ken g >>> Clay Phillips 8/9/2007 6:56 PM >>> 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 file: //C:\Documents and Settings\rbrother \Local Settings \TempAPgrpwise \46BC1F02City_... 1/9/2008 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 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,1quested 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. Deleted. required __. ....... -- ....._._ .... ._ _... It now appears that you wish to reconsider almost every,aspect of the development that { ...... Deleted almost 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 _IriletS Delet —) The drainage requirements called for in the City's plan review of the subdivision are necessary. �i IS the responsibility of the City to ensure that development does not c reate future problems 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 Deleted: The improvements in question will become City property. The City will be required to maintain the drainage utility in perp Deleted: . Clay Phillips