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,