Alexander Ct-CS070712
Page 1 of 1
Ken Griffin - Mr.Hawkins / Alexander Ct.
From:Ken Griffin
To:Clay Phillips; David Dodd; Jim Witt; Robert Hager
Date:7/12/2007 2:38 PM
Subject: Mr.Hawkins / Alexander Ct.
Attachments: Alexander ct letter rev 2.doc; Alexander ct letter rev 1.doc
Attached are draft copies of two letters to Mr. Hawkins. Letter 1 should go out today, if possible. Letter 2 is a
discussion of items in his 7/9/7 letter. It can go out when I return to the office on 7/23/7.
Any comments today on letter 1 would be appreciated.
Thanks
ken g
file://C:\Documents and Settings\radloo\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\46963CE1City_...2/10/2010
July 11, 2007
John L. Hawkins, President
Mira Mar Development Corp
6003 Sunderland Drive
Colleyville TX 76034
RE: Alexander Court
Dear Mr. Hawkins:
This letter is written in response to your letter of July 9, 2007 in which you noted eleven
“Development Extractions” that you questioned the City’s authority to require. You stated that
you are seeking ‘individualized determinations’ for your property. Because your letter was
copied to an attorney, I have met with our city attorney concerning your letter. Our city attorney
has advised me that until the legal issues concerning the ‘development extractions’ are resolved,
all activity concerning this project should follow a more formal process to ensure compliance
with city rules, regulations and ordinances. You should have your attorney contact David Dodd,
City Attorney, at 214-965-9900 to discuss the issue of ‘development extractions’. Also, because
you questioned the City’s authority to require certain things, the attorney has advised me that any
items we have previously offered that are not specifically allowed by City rules, regulations or
ordinances should be reconsidered.
One item that was previously offered to you by the Engineering Department as an opportunity to
proceed in a timelier manner was construction of a portion of your roadway in what is currently
shown as a floodplain, without benefit of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision or a Letter of
Map Revision from FEMA. Based on our attorney’s advice, that opportunity has been
reconsidered and revised to be in conformance with city rules, regulations and ordinances.
Therefore, no construction or fill of any kind should be placed within any floodplain shown on
the official Floodplain Insurance Rate Map for the City of Coppell until such time as a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision or a Letter of Map Revision has been obtained from FEMA.
If you wish to seek relief from the issue concerning the floodplain, I would advise you to read
‘Article 4’ ‘Section D’ of our current Floodplain Management Ordinance, which deals with
variances. Variances require City Council approval. In the past, Council has granted some
variances and denied others. The actual variance you should seek is a variance to ‘Article 4’
‘Paragraph 11’, which states “Require floodplain development permits for all new construction
or development in floodplain management areas of the City”. ‘Article 4’ ‘Paragraph 11’
‘Subparagraph a’ states “Assure that conditional approvals are received from FEMA before a
Floodplain Development Permit is issued”. Conditional approval in this case would be a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision or a final Letter of Map Revision. Prior to any work in the
floodplain, my office has to provide a Floodplain Development Permit and by ordinance, that
permit cannot be issued until such time as we have approvals from FEMA. Again, if you wish to
seek a variance to the requirement that no fill, encroachment, etc. can be placed within the
official floodplain, then you would need to seek that from the City Council. In the backup
information for the Council to review your request for a variance, there has typically been
verification from FEMA that they have received all information necessary to conduct the review,
including any required fees. Your floodplain study has been signed and your engineer has been
notified that it can be picked up for submittal to FEMA. If the study and the required fees are
processed in a timely manner to FEMA, then it is conceivable you could have your variance
th
request considered at the August 14 City Council meeting. To meet the deadline for the August
th
14 meeting, you would need to have all verification information to my office no later than
Wednesday, August 1, 2007.
Again, to ensure that you continue to move forward, please have your attorney work with David
Dodd, City Attorney, concerning the ‘Development Extractions’.
Unfortunately, I am leaving town on July 13, 2007 for vacation and will not return to the office
until July 23, 2007. When I return, we can discuss the issues noted in your letter in more detail.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E.
Director of Engineering & Public Works
Office Phone: (972) 304-3686
Fax: (972) 304-7041
cc: Jim Witt, City Manager
Clay Phillips, Deputy City Manager
David Dodd, City Attorney
July 11, 2007
John L. Hawkins, President
Mira Mar Development Corp
6003 Sunderland Drive
Colleyville TX 76034
RE: Alexander Court
Dear Mr. Hawkins:
This letter is written in response to your letter of July 9, 2007 in which you noted eleven
“Development Extractions” that you questioned the City’s authority to require.
The following is a brief discussion concerning the eleven “Development Extractions” noted in
your letter.
1) Rolled Curbs – These were allowed in the Summit at the Springs development as a test
section. What we discovered was that on a typical 28’ street with rolled curbs, there was only
24’ of driving surface. Standard detail 2035, our roadway standard as approved by Council,
requires that a 28’ street have a 6” curb and 27’ of driving surface between the face of the curbs.
If you choose to pursue the use of rolled curbs, you need to insure that there is 27’ of driving
surface between the gutter lines. This would require an approximate paving width of 31’ (27’
gutter to gutter and a 2 foot rolled curb on both sides). You also questioned why you are
required to have a 6” crown when Summit of the Springs was allowed a 5” crown. Summit at
the Springs was constructed under our old Construction Details. Our standard details changed in
May 2005 and now require a 6” crown on a 28’ street.
2) Extra Inlets – I have been in the civil engineering field for almost 25 years. One of the
problems I have seen during that time is that when houses are constructed at a “T” intersection of
a street and drainage flows toward the house from the intersecting street, in heavy rains water
tends to jump the opposite curb and flood either the house or garage. That is the reason that we
are requiring that the driveway for the house opposite the intersecting street be placed on the east
side of the lot and that the house be elevated at least one foot above the top of curb to prevent the
property from flooding in the future. You will not find a city ordinance requiring this; it is based
on professional engineering judgement and experience.
3) Denton Tap Sidewalk – The City’s Subdivision Ordinance ‘Appendix C’, ‘Section VIII’
‘Miscellaneous’ ‘Paragraph B’ ‘Sidewalks’ states, “Sidewalks shall be constructed for all lots
adjoining dedicated streets, along major thoroughfares where lots do not adjoin the street, across
power line easements and in other areas where pedestrian walkways are necessary. Sidewalk
construction may be delayed until the development of lots, but in locations not adjacent to lots
and across bridges and culverts, the sidewalk shall be constructed with the other improvements
to the subdivision. Sidewalks adjacent to screening walls shall be 5 feet in width…”. Therefore,
based on city ordinance, you are required to build a five foot sidewalk adjacent to Denton Tap
Road at the time you develop the property.
4) Raised Building Pads – The information for this is the same as #2) - Extra inlets.
5) Headwall Piers – You will not find a city ordinance requiring headwalls be placed on piers.
That comment is based on professional engineering judgement and experience. The City has
already had two headwalls collapse into creeks taking with them portions of the storm drain
system. This has required the city to go in and remove portions of the storm drain, rebuild the
storm drain, re-compact the channel bank and then place the headwall on piers to insure that it
carries its weight and does not fall into the creek again.
6) Extra Manholes – Your letter states that you were told Glenn Hollowell, Assistant Public
Works Director, was okay with the spacing and curvature of your sewer line. Glenn’s comments
were that he reserved the right to offer an opinion on your proposal once he had a chance to
review the construction plans. Construction plans have been reviewed and the comment was
made to add another manhole. Manhole spacing of at or less than 500 feet is a city requirement.
You can find the requirement in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance ‘Appendix C’ ‘Section III’
‘Sanitary Sewer’ ‘Paragraph A’ ‘Subparagraph 19’ which states, “Manhole spacing shall not be
greater than 500 feet.”
7) Added Retaining Walls – This comment is made based on professional engineering
judgement and experience. Typically, after development, the steep grade of back yards pose
problems when future homeowners try to level up the yard for items such as pools or decks.
When homeowners change the grade of their yards, drainage problems often occur.
8) Fill Dirt in the Floodway – You are correct that city ordinance states no fill dirt is to be
placed in the floodplain. Our ordinance supersedes FEMA because it is stricter than FEMA. As
noted in a prior letter, no encroachments will be allowed in the floodplain until you have either
received approval from FEMA or a variance from City Council.
Your letter references #9 Park Fee, #10 Roadway Assessment Impact Fee and #11 ROW
dedication. I am unsure of the purpose of 9, 10, and 11.
Please contact me to schedule a meeting so we can discuss these items in greater detail.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E.
Director of Engineering & Public Works
Office Phone: (972) 304-3686
Fax: (972) 304-7041
cc: Jim Witt, City Manager
Clay Phillips, Deputy City Manager
David Dodd, City Attorney