Alexander Ct-CS070810T H E - C 1 T y - .0 F
COPPELL
-�
T £ l p
VIA E -MAIL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Directors
FROM: Clay Phillips, Deputy City Manager
DATE: August 10, 2007
REF: Tidbits
1. Today we placed in your boxes a copy of an interoffice memo from Brad Reid
authorizing emergency funds for erosion control measures at Andy Brown East.
This will be discussed further at your meeting on Tuesday. The memo is
supplemental to the information contained in your agenda packet.
2. An invitation to a "Meet Mitt Romney" event has been placed in your boxes.
3. Copies of the letters regarding the Alexander Court project are attached. Please call
if you have any questions.
4. I will be in town all weekend. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions.
CP:kb
Attachment
T H E • C 1 T Y • O F
COPPE
F o
x sq
A S �
August 10, 2007
Mr. John Hawkins
6003 Sunderland Drive
Colleyville, Texas 76034
Dear 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 requested 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 almost every 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
The drainage requirements called for in the City's plan review of the subdivision are necessary. It
is the responsibility of the City to ensure that development does not create future problems. The
255 PARKWAY * P- 9478 * COPPELL TX 75019 * TEL 972/462 0022 * FAX 972/304 3673
Mr. John Hawkins
August 10, 2007
Page Two
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 regarding slopes even after your engineer
agreed the changes could be made. 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.
However, we will meet with you again if you so desire. 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,
�v `���� �
Clay Phillips
Deputy City Manager
ZCORPftORATION aIx
Master Planned Living
Mr. Clay Phillips
Deputy City Manager
City of Coppell
Dear Sir,
August 7, 2007
Re: Alexander Court
Unresolved
Development Exactions
Since our 7/19 meeting, my engineer has been revising our engineering plans per Ken
Griffin's instruction. I delivered the latest revised set on Friday. All comments have been
responded to and corrected. Our plans should be ready for final approval today. In the
interest of saving the project, we must proceed with the plans as approved, though some
items may need to be discussed and resolved. This letter is provided to supplement, not
replace, my letter to Ken. Per my letter of 7/9 and as we discussed, although we have
come to agreement on several points, many issues remain without a resolution. For that
reason, we look forward to accepting your offer to meet with the Council on 8/14. It was
our understanding that you thought they could consider waving certain restrictions, under
the proper circumstances and with that in mind, we plan to submit the following issues
for their consideration and resolution:
1) ROLLED CURBS are a desirable alternative to standard curbs and as such, have
been requested by David Weekley Homes. Coppell Fire Lanes are 24' F -F or
25' B -B. If the Fire Dept. finds this acceptable, why would they have difficulty
traveling on a 24' G -G section with 28' B -B and no vertical curb obstruction ?
It appears that they would have more unobstructed room to maneuver than a
28' B -B road with standard curbs, not less. Although we have changed our plans
to build standard curbs, we believe rolled curbs are the most aesthetically pleasing.
2) EXTRA INLETS on Knights Way are not necessary, according to my engineer's
interpretation of what is required according to acceptable engineering practice.
The intersection of Knights Way and Olympia Lane was designed with broader
36' radius curb returns, which allows the water to diffuse more rapidly. Because of
this larger transition area, maximum run off from Knights Way into Olympia would
blend with the South gutter run off from the East and sheet flow to the West;
ultimately being deposited in the inlets in front of lot 4 and between lots 16 and 17.
The water carrying capacity of Knights Way is sufficient, without the inlets. In my
opinion, these inlets are not a proportionate response to any need created for the
City and an extra $ 12,000 expense for the property owner.
Page One of Three
6003 Sunderland Drive - Colleyville, Texas 76034
Tel (817) 996 -6698 -Fax (817) 329 -1792
Alexander Court Exactions Page Two of Three
3) TREE MITIGATION should exclude trees within the public R.O.W.. There are
more than 60 trees, from 6" to 24" diameter, in the dedicated street R.O.W., which
should be excluded from the tree count and be more proportional, thus reducing
the tree liability from 1,500 to 900 caliper inches and reducing the fee to $ 19,000.
This represents a cost savings of $ 15,500. Additionally, an individualized tree
mitigation determination would properly take into consideration the fact that some
30% of this tract is in the flood plain and all the trees between the flood plain line
and the creek are being left in their native state and will not be developed. This
natural state should be added credit, which would mitigate the fee. Again, this
additional factor shows the City's requirements to not be proportionate in our case.
4) A SIDEWALK ON DENTON TAP is a public improvement and not relative to any
proportional need by the City, caused by this or any benefit accruing to the
residents of Alexander Court. There is no purpose or utility in building a sidewalk
in this location; with no practical connection to the North, no public necessity or
justifiable need for the additional $ 7,000 expense. Is it not true; if the property
were not being platted, the record owner would not be asked to pay for a sidewalk ?
5) RAISED BUILDING PADS are not proportional or necessary , according to FEMA
requirements. Creek lot building pads are normally below the top of curb. All pad
elevations are a minimum of 1' above the ultimate 100 year flood line. This is
according to City ordinance. There is no justifiable reason to believe the subject
building sites are in any danger of flooding. To raise these pads 1' above the curb
is a disproportionate cost of an additional $ 5,000.
6) FILL DIRT IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, under these circumstances, is a reasonable
accommodation and an accepted practice according to FEMA. If FEMA does not
approve the new line, I will agree to remove the dirt; the City has no liability.
Allowing this fill to be placed in the flood plain would compensate Mira Mar for
the delay from 4/26 to 7/12 in submitting the LOMR application and avoid an
additional disproportionate $ 20,000 excavation expense.
7) THIRD PARTY FLOOD STUDY CHECKING is not provided for in the Coppell
flood plain ordinance. It is unnecessary and a disproportionate expense to have
an applicant pay for outside engineers to check a property owner's flood study,
which has been sealed by a certified hydrologist; therefore, Mira Mar will expect
a $ 2,000 reimbursement or credit against fees.
8) 3:1 SLOPES ARE ACCEPTABLE along the back line of lot 7. FHA allows 2:1
slopes on lots. The requirement of a 4:1 slope is disproportionate and denies the
Optimum use of the back yard. This is private property and not subject to public
grading criteria. This requirement would cost an additional $ 5,000. It is not
supported by ordinance or statute and is entirely disproportionate to any need
created by the project.
Alexander Court Exactions
Page Three of Three
9) CONCRETE CAPS for two water line cuts on Bethel Road are disproportionate
and unnecessary because Bethel is going to be concrete paved and those caps
would be destroyed during the lime stabilization process. A compacted flowable
fill and asphalt surface patch should suffice and save the $ 3,000 expense.
10) 0.147 ACRE DEDICATION for Bethel should receive a $ 21,700 fee credit.
11) THE PARK FEE of $1,285 per lot bears no proportional relationship to the
total residents in Coppell versus the 29 residents in Alexander Court.
An individualized determination of the park fee should take into account the
30% of the 18.5 acres, which is within the flood plain and not to be developed.
12) THE ROADWAY ASSESSMENT FEE of $ 1,000 per acre bears no proportional
relationship to the total residents' burden versus the 29 residents of Alexander Ct.
Regarding items 11 and 12. I believe a site specific individualized determination of the
rough proportionality requirement, would yield a much lower park fee than $ 1,285
per lot and a lower roadway assessment fee of some $ 1,000 per acre. The truth is,
I cannot understand how either fee was arrived upon or how they relate to my property
and, although requested, the City has provided no justification, other than some reference
to an inflexible ordinance, applied generally.
As per my 7/9 letter to Ken Griffin, Mira Mar is requesting an official response from the
City regarding the foregoing issues and their cost to the applicant (property owner).
My request is appropriate and in proper compliance with the provisions set forth within
the Local Government Code, Section 212.904. If, after an Engineer, retained by the City,
has made the necessary determination of rough proportionality and the financial burden
of these requirements is ultimately found to be unnecessary, Mira Mar would respectfully
request reimbursement for the actual cost to provide those City mandated items.
Perhaps we could come to some agreement on the 12 issues, without involving the
Council or having the City hire an Engineer to make the determinations cited within
the law. These issues represent some $ 91,000 in direct project cost or offset credit;
certainly not an inconsequential budget item. Please let me or Walter know if you think
we can come to an acceptable accommodation and definitive conclusion on each of the
itemized issues. Thank You for your assistance...
cc: Kenneth Griffin, PE Yours Very Truly,
Walter Leonard, Esquire John L. Hawkins, Pres.
Tim Bennett, PE