Loading...
Alexander Ct-CS070709DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Master Planned Living Mr. Kenneth M. Griffin, PE Director of Engineering / Public Works City of Coppell 255 Parkway Coppell, Texas 75019 "kgriffin @ci.coppell.tx.us" July 9, 2007 Re: " Alexander Court " Development Exactions ---------------------- - - - - -- Dear Sir; This letter is a follow up to what was a very contentious meeting last Friday. I have done this type of work for 45 years and I have always tried to be happy, optimistic, see the best in everyone and treat others with dignity and respect. It was therefore very disappointing to have a public servant tell my engineer that his design was poor, tell me that I did not know anything, that I was not welcome in your office, that you did not trust me and that I was a liar. Do you actually mean these statements? My company proposes to do work in Coppell that will benefit the existing and future citizens and I hope that we will be able to conduct our future business as professionals. After our meeting, I feel that it is necessary to detail my concerns about several disputed issues, which affect our development. I must request a response from you or the appropriate City official. Texas cities are required to comply with the Local Government Code; Sec. 212.904 and Ch. 395, regarding conditional requirements. The Texas Supreme Court has ruled: "that any City requirement must bear an essential nexus to the substantial advancement of some legitimate government interest and that a City has the burden of providing evidence that it made some sort of individualized determination that the requirement is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development and that impact has been measured in a meaningful way. " All requirements made, as a condition to a development permit, are exactions. The mere application of a City ordinance does not constitute an individualized determination. In compliance with Section 212.904 and as a property owner, seeking development approval, from your City; please provide Mira Mar Dev. Corp. with your individualized determinations, regarding the following issues: Page One of Five 6003 Sunderland Drive • Colleyville, Texas 760.54 Tel. (817) 996 -6698 • Fax (817) 329 -1792 Alexander Court Exactions 1) ROLLED CURBS Since November 2006, Alexander Court has been proposed to have rolled curbs. No objection has been voiced by anyone at the City, till now. They are more aesthetically pleasing than standard curbs and almost without exception, in common use throughout the metroplex by probably every City except Coppell. Although The Springs was allowed to use a rolled curb section, identical to what we proposed, except our profile has one more #3 rebar than theirs, you now say they are inferior and not negotiable by the Fire Dept. I am sure those residents would be astonished to learn of your assessment. I built a 152 -lot subdivision with 27' BB paving and rolled curbs and the Grand Prairie Fire Dept. had no problem approving their use. Using the standard curb, there is 1.4' of curbing and 26.6' gutter to gutter. Using our proposed rolled curb, there is 4' of curb and 24' gutter to gutter. Although the standard section does provide 2.6' more turn around area, if additional space is required, the standard curb is more of a barrier, whereas the rolled curb is mountable; moreover, the standard accepted fire lane in the City of Coppell and the NCTCOG is 24' and that is what is uniformly required for commercial construction. Our request to use rolled curbs is reasonable, within established precedent and in keeping with accepted paving standards. There is no City ordinance that precludes their use. Dowdey Anderson used a 5" crown and it was appropriate for our conditions as well. Our proposed 5" crown and 6" rolled curb profile was shown to be more than adequate to handle the runoff and provide sufficient street carrying capacity. I expect to be shown the same consideration as Dowdey Anderson. Please explain why our proposed paving and curb design is unacceptable. 2) EXTRA INLETS Knights Way comfortably carries the minimal projected runoff from the South within the street to the proposed inlets and my engineer believes that standard engineering practice dictates that the intersection inlets are not necessary, nor is the $10,000 added expense. 3) DENTON TAP SIDEWALK The proposed sidewalk on Denton Tap is a public improvement and of no benefit or practical use accruing to the residents of Alexander Court. residents are not allowed access to Denton Tap. If the property were not being developed, no sidewalk would be required of the property owner. Since there is no physical way to connect the North end of the proposed sidewalk with the existing sidewalk Page Two of Five Alexander Court Exactions to the North and there is very little space between the curb and guard rail to pass. What is the utility or public necessity of building an unusable sidewalk? If the City does not want to pay for the cost of this improvement, please provide the basis for your determination as to what proportionate part of the $ 10,000 expense, you believe Alexander Court should be required to pay. 4) RAISED BUILDING PADS The finished floor elevations for all creek lots have been established to be a minimum of 2' above the 100 -year flood plain or 1' above the ultimate flood plain line, whichever is higher. Creek lots traditionally have finished floors below the curb in front of the house. The finished floors are correct as shown and within the City flood plain ordinance. Please explain why you think the pads should be raised so the finished floor is 1' above the curb. This added requirement I believe to be unreasonable, as is the unnecessary $5,000 filling and compaction expense. 5) HEADWALL PIERS The line should be recessed back from the bank and not protrude into the normal low flow of the creek channel. The proposed headwall is shown to have an exceptionally deep toe wall, which is designed to seal off the backfill at the creek shale bottom. This precludes the pipe discharge from undercutting the pipe support and thereby eroding the soil under the pipe. An oversized toe wall has proven to solve this problem and I believe the addition of piers is unnecessary, as is the $2,000 expense. 6) EXTRA MANHOLES The 300' radius sanitary sewer tie in to the existing manhole on lot 23 has been shown on our water and sanitary sewer plan and accepted by City Council, without objection or condition. The extra manhole in the street is unnecessary because, prior to our submission, Scott Latta asked Glenn Hollowell if 580' was an acceptable distance between manholes, under these conditions and Glenn had no objections. The designed tie in does not compromise surface use of the back yard to a detrimental degree. Since the extra manholes are not required and the curves do not adversely effect the sewer function, those two manholes are not necessary, nor is the additional $ 12,000 expense. Page Three of Five Alexander Court Exactions 7) ADDED RETAINING WALL S The common back lines to lots 1,2,3 & 6,7,8 are on private property and I believe a legal determination would confirm that their back yards are not subject to City Scrutiny. No public necessity required or purpose served. Granting construction permits cannot be subject to speculation about possible future complaints from home owners. In this case, the lots are large and the 3:1 slopes are easily maintainable without surface erosion. A 300' retaining wall is not necessary in this area and the City would be creating an unnecessary $ 15,000 expense. 8) FILL DIRT TO THE FLOOD WAY Although the City ordinance says fill dirt may not be placed within the flood plain, FEMA accepts that under these conditions, you are allowed to place fill dirt up to the flood way line. On this property, you personally knew the flood plain and flood way line were grossly out of position, while Carol Vesey still owned it, because you had a flood study from Kimley Horn made prior to my purchase, which reflects just such a result. Kimley Horn totally agrees with the determination of the flood plain by my hydrologist Mike Boyd, PE. Not only has the submission been delayed, but I was forced to pay $2,000 for them to check Nathan Maier's work. The flood plain ordinance does not stipulate that a property owner must pay for outside consultants to check the applicant's hydrologist, only that a flood study must be done and the City submit it to FEMA for approval, which has been withheld for more than a month. It is a common practice to place fill dirt in the flood plain under these conditions without any objection from FEMA, as long as that dirt does not go into the flood way. You have the discretion to allow construction of all the building pads from lot 11 through 23, inclusive. It is common knowledge and undisputed that the new line will be accepted by all parties. It is not necessary that my grading contractor stock pile dirt on lots 11 and 23; just to come back after FEMA has issued their LOMR and move all that dirt twice, remove trees and build those pads in and around installed water, sewer, electric, gas and telephone services. I believe an accommodation is reasonable and prudent, if you were so inclined and I would not have the additional $40,000 expense to accomplish the dirt work in such a bifurcated process, when my proposition is not detrimental to the flood plain. 9) PARK FEE OF $ 37,265 Page Four of Five Alexander Court Exactions Page Five of Five 10) ROADWAY ASSESSMENT IMPACT FEE OF $ 18,500 11) 0.147 ACRE R.O.W. DEDICATION WITH LAND COST OF $ 22,000 The items listed represent an aggregate sum of $170,000 additional cost to fund City mandated exactions, design changes and/or fees to be paid by the owner, as a condition of development. I have a financial interest and an obligation to see that the project gets built in a reasonable time frame. Having to spend another $170k is a financial burden. Please let me know if we are going to be able to address these issues before you go on vacation. The property tax value of this subdivision will be some $ 40,000,000. As a direct result of your actions, we are unable to finalize our grading, utility, paving and screen wall contracts. A decision needs to be made as to how we will proceed without delaying the rough grading an inordinate period of time. Please respond to these points in a timely manner. Walter is available for consultation, if you don't think we can resolve these issues otherwise. You have been helpful in the process thus far and I hope you choose to continue. I look forward to a constructive resolution. Your continued cooperation is critical to our development being successful and I can assure you that it is not taken for granted, but greatly appreciated. cc: Walter W. Leonard, Esquire Attorney at Law One Summit Ave., Ste. 1010 Fort Worth, Tx. 76102 Office 817 - 335 -6538 Fax 817- 335 -0932 Yours Very Truly, Mira Mar Dev. Corp. John L. Hawkins, Pres. :'Vtllurfi', t LAND USE REGULATION LAND USE REGULATION Title T itle 7 lricipalities § 292, ) chapter as a condition om a municipally owned ISIONS e Aide . Series 1 21.03, Subdivision )wned Buildings or or more. municipality or obtain ed within the limits of el acting as general I or renovation work ensed in this state in a building pmt for )r facilities by private uniciloality's building :999, 76th Leg., & 84 $ 212:904 Research References Forms 15 West's Texas Forms § 14.06, Municipal Sub - Texas Jurisprudence Pleading & practice Forms division Regulation Under Chapter 212. 2d Ed § 92:1, Introductory Comments. Texas Jurisprudence Pleading & Praotice Forms Treatises and Practice Aids 2d Ed § 92:18, Interrogatories — Lands Dedi- Brooke, 36 Tex. Prac. Series f 9.7, Compliance crated to Public Entity. With Municipal Codes and Ordinances. 212.904• Apportionment of Municipal Infrastructure Coate (a) If a municipality requires as a condition of approval for a property development that the developer bear a portion of the costa of munici Project the malting of dedications, the a pal infrastructure improvements by r'a payment of fees, or the 'Payment of eonstruetfon costs, the developer's portion of the costs may not exceed the amount required for inftastructure improvements that are roughly proportionate to the proposed development as professional engineer who holds a license issued under Chapter 1001, Occupations Code, and is retained by the municipality. (b) A developer who disputes the determination ruade under Subsection (a) may appeal to the 8'oveming 'body of the municipality. At the appeal, .the developer may present evid ence and testimony under procedures adopted by the governing body. After h e testimony and reviewing the evidence, the governing body shall make the .applicatile det nation de el a w l ttun 80 days. following the final submission of any testimony or evidence by the op (c) A developer may appeal the determination of the governing body to a county or district court of the county in which the development project is located within 30 days of the final determination by the governing body. (d) A municipality may not require a developer to waive the right of appeal authorized by this section as a condition of approval for a development project. (e) A developer who prevatle in an appeal under this section is entitled to applicable costs and to reasonable attorney's fees, including expert witness fees. (f)• This section does not diminish the authority or modify the procedures specified by Chapter 395. Added by Acts 2006, 79th Leg., ch. 982, 4 1, eff, June 18, 2006. MstoricaI and Statutory Notes 2005 Legislation Section 2 of Acts 2006. 79th Leg., ch. 982 pro- vides: "The change in law made by this Act applies to the approval of a development project that is not finally adJudieated before the effective date of this Act." - Research References Encyclopedias TX Jur, 8d Zoning § 113, Municipalities — Stan- TX Jur. 8d Dedication § 6, Subdivision Develop- dares for Approval. ment CHAPTER 213: MUNICIPAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Section Section Co 218.002. Comprehensive Plan. 218.001. purpose. 218.004. Effect on Other Municipal Plans. 218.008. Adoption or Amendment of Comprehe 218.00b. n_ Notation on leap of Comprehensive sive Plan. plan A AAther Chapter 21S, Authority of Municipalities to Establish Building Li+zes, by Acts 1887, 70th Leg., ch, 149, § 1, and cmeeWing of §§ 21$.001 to 21$,006,