Big Cedar-AG 910813 IL£ COPY
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
Cmmidmtien of a~ a variance to the F~X~d]~l~in M~m~nt Ot~ ,8?930, Art. 4,
Sec. B, Item ·11 (a), which states tlmt tim Floodplain kdministrater mt~ ' annm~ tlmt ccs~tinm~!
approvals are received from FEMA before a Floodp~l~in Development Permit is issued '~ for the
Iroposed University Park Project along Strenm G-l, a tributary of Grapevine Creel~
SUBMITTED BY~~k~~~
EVALUATION OF ITEM:
STAFF pF.p.: M. ~ Daneshmand
kcti~ 'City
OTHER I~.P.: RC'-~'t~ u,,r,,~,,'l-
DATE: ~,~
This variance is being requested by Mr. Matt Good, P~E., of Goodwin and Marshall, Iuc~ (G& M),
representing Matthews Southwest Investments. Mr. Ren Mct~m~m, P.E. has reviewed +hl, mall
floodpl~{- re~l-matien report en behalf of the City of Coppell ~ee attached lettm dated
and 8/5/91). Staff ~ no objecticm to the var~-c~ as requested, with the comlifio~ that all
comments stated in Mr. Mcrrison's lette~ dated August 5, 1~1 are addremed (see attached). And
further, we recommend that the City CounCil stipulate that no l~ldi,E permits will be issued on 'the
shall, site until FEMA has reviewed the comiitio~nl letter of map revision. Mr. Marshall of Goodwin and Mar-
Inc. will be iremmt along with Staff to answer any questimm.
BUDGKT AMT.
AMT +/- BUDGKT
COMMENTS:
LEGAL REVIEW BY:
REVIEWED BY CM:
GOOgWlN
ARSHALL
CIVIL ENGINEERS ~ PLANNERS ~ SURVEYORS
July 30, 1991
Mr. Gary Sieb
Director of Planning and Community SerVices
City of Coppell
255 parkway Boulevard
Coppell, Texas 75019
, ,,/
Request for Variance of City-of Coppeil Ordinance No. 87390, Section 4b (ll)(a) for the
Proposed University Park Addition to the City of Coppell, Texas
Dear Gary:
As project manager for the owners of the property to contain the proposed University Park Addition,
I would like to formally apply to be included on the next poas~le City Council agenda for the
purpose of requesting a variance to the above referenced ordinance. I have included a copy of a
letter from Mr. Ron .Morrison, the engineering consultant for the City of Coppell on floodplain
issues, which indicates that such a variance is necessary to expedite the project.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or comments regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
D. Matthew Goodwin, P.E.
DMG/jc
CC:
,Ms. Mary Myers
Mr. Fred Joyce
Mr. Tim House
6001 BRIDGE STREET, SUITE 1 O0/ FORT W~D'rH. TEXAS 761-I 2 / 817-429-4373 (METRO)
520 AVF~UE H F~ST, SUiTE 102
ARLZNGTON, TEXAS 76011
~TRO 817.6a0-455,~
Au&usC 5, 1991
Ms. Shohre Daneshmand
Actin& City Engineer
City of Coppeli
P. O. Box 478
Coppel!, Texas 75019
Re: Review of:
Floodplain Analysis for a Floodplain Development Permit
for a portion of Tributary,,' G-i of Grapevine Creek City
of Coppell, Dallas Co~mty, Texas by Goodwin and
~tars~hall, Iuc. of Fort Worth, Texas
9ear Ms. Daneshmand:
This is a follow-up letter to our review letter of July 27,
1991, same subject. We have not received the information
requested in our review of the project submittal, however we
discussed the information with Mr, MaTt Goodwin of Goodwin
and }~rshall and they have agreed to provide the information
requested. Based on this we recommend approval of a
Floodplain Development Permit subject to receipt and review
of the requested ir~formatton. For clarity we have briefly
listed the requested information below:
1. Council approval of a variance to the floodplain ordinance
requirement of Section 4B (ll)(a) which states that the
floodplain adminis~ragor mu~t ~assure cha~ conditional
approv~!$ are received from F£~A before ~ Floodplain
Developmen~ Permit is issued."
2. Section 4.C.g requires the applicant to obtain all
necessary permits from other agencies. This includes the
Corps of Engineers 404 Permit. This was not addressed in
the subject stud),. The applicant should either obtain a
August 5, 19~
Page -2-
wetland determination from the Corps or state that he has
completed this determination and found no jurisdictional
we=lands impacted by =he project.
The applicant has chosen to use a Peak~on-Peak method to
start the hydraulic model. ~e recomsend that the
applicant review the mc~lel using =he $1op~ Area Hethod
for the 100 year flood to dete~mine if it has an adverse
impact.
~%en a plat is provided it should be reviewed regarding
information to b~ contained on the plat related to the flood
plain. These are fully explained in the Ordinance. One of
the most important is to show the lowest finished floor of
all construction elevated to a minimu~ of =wo (2) f~et above
the FI$ base flood elevation or to one (1) foot above the
design ba~e flood elevation whiuhsvsr is higher.
~e will be glad ~o provide additional information if needed.
Sincerely,
~SO~D,V, OLOG~/A'NGZN~EF.Z~6,
Ronald ~. 5orrison, P.E.
Senior Hydrologist
G OODWIN
ARSHALL
CIVIL ENGINEERS ~ PLANNERS ~ SURVEYORS
July 30, 1991
Mx. Gary Sieb
Director of Planning and Community Services
City of Coppell
255 Parkway Boulevard
Coppell, Texas 75019
- 7 199l
Request for Variance of City of Coppell Ordinance No. 87390, Section 4b (ll)(a) for the
Proposed University Park Addition to the City of Coppell, Texas
Dear Mx. Sicb:
As project manager for the owners of the property to contain the proposed University Park Addition,
I would like to formally apply to be included on the next possible City Council agenda for the
~u--rp~-0~ requesting a variance to the above referenced ordinance. As you are aware, the
University Park project has been on hold for over two years based on the on-going debate regarding
the final solution for Bethel School Road. The Coppell City Council has recently decided to allow
for Bethel School Road to terminate in a cul-de-sac near the entrance to the proposed University
Park development. It is this time delay that has significantly impacted the project itself.
As we have previously discussed, the property is currently under contract to Matthews Southwest
Investments, represented by Mx. Tim House. The current effective Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for this region does not indicate the subject property to be within the 100.year floodplain.
Based on this fact, Goodwin and Marshall, Inc. (G&M) has performed a detailed study of the
property indicating the existing conditions floodplain and the possible limits of reclamation. The
reclamation would be performed solely for the p~ of extending the lots adjacent to the creek
to a point suitable for construction of house pads. It is the intent of all parties involved to minimize
thc extent of reclamation, while maximizing the amount of natural foliage left remaining in this area.
The existing tree coverage and creek arc seen to be positive aspects of this proposed development.
It has been our intention to work with the City staff and your engineering consultant to insure that
all City regulations are met or exceeded in the proposed development. With this in mlnd~ [ met with
Ms. Shohre Daneshmand, the City Engineer, on June 6, 1991. During our meeting it was discussed
that FEMA is currently in the process of updating the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the City of
Coppell. Ms. Daneshmand also indicated that the City has requested FEMA to include a portion of
the property in question on the revised FIRM for the region as a "non-detailed" study area. A "non-
detailed" study area represents an area in which no technical information is submitted to FF. JdA in
support of the floodplain delineation. Instead, the floodplain is drawn based on contours and
backwater effects from downstream hydraulic controls. I would like to stress that Section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-234) provides for a formal proce~ of
notification and appeals for regions proposed for inclusion into the Nationwide Flood I~urance
Program. During this 90 day period, any owner or lessee of real property in the community who
6001 BRIDGE STREET. SUITE 100, '- RT WORTH, TEXAS 761 ! 2 / 817-429-4373 (METRO)
AUG - 7 1991
Mr. Gary Sieb
3o, lOOl
Page 2 of 3
beUeves his property rights will be adversely affected by the proposed base flood elevation
determinations may appeal The sole basis for such appeals is the possession of knowledge or
information that the proposed base flood elevations or floodplain delineation determinations are
scientifically or technically incorrect. As will be discussed later, CJoodwin and Marshall, Inc. ((}&M)
has performed a detailed study of this tributary to Grapevine Creek, including approximately twenty
(20) field surveyed cross-sections. We feel that the current proposed floodplain delineations are in
error, and based on the technically correct data represented by our flood study, we would most
certainly appeal the floodplain delineation recommended by the City from the "non-detailed" study.
Obviously, the City does not have the resources to field survey each watercourse within the boundary
of the city itself. Therefore, we feel that Section 110 as discussed above allows us to file a legitimate
appeal in this instance. However, we feel that there is a much better approach to this situation.
The status of the floodplain is a concern to the current owner of the property, Fred Joyce-Mary
Myers Enterprises, Inc. as well as Matthews Southwest. Based on the two year delay in construction
of the project represented by the negotiations with the City, we now face the distinct possibility of
being required to submit to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for a conditional
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to commencing with construction. It is this issue that we
would like to address at this time. Matthews Southwest has indicated that the time frame inherent
to this submittal, which can take as long as six months to process, is very undesirable and may, in
effect, be cause to not purchase the property.
As we discussed in our previous meeting, it is the intention of Matthews Southwest and Mrs. Myers
that all City floodplain regulations be met or exceeded. To determine the existing conditions
floodplain, as well as to recommend a proposed plan of improvements for the project, G&M
performed numerous field surveyed cross-sections, as well as field locating the top of slope
throughout the project location. In addition, G&M has performed a detailed hydrologic and hydraulic
analysis, the result of which has previously been submitted to the City Engineer in support of the
proposed project. The detailed floodplain analysis shows that all City and FEMA guidelines for
floodplain development are met or exceeded with this proposed reclamation plan. The floodplain
analysis has been reviewed by Mr. Run Morrison, the technical consultant to the City, with
corresponding response dated July 26, 1991. In his response, Mr. Morrison descn~cn~s in detail the
fact that the existing floodplain ordinance requires a conditional LOMR from FEMA. Mx. Morrison
also addresses the appropriate portion of the ordinance that allows for a variance from the city
council. The reasonable causes deemed as those warranting a variance are as follows:
1) Showing a good and sufficient cause
2) A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the
applicant; and
3) A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights,
additional threats to public or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
We feel that the delay in the project incurred to date, as well as the fact that the floodplain analysis
submitted by Goodwin and Marshall, Inc. is the only detailed study presented is sufC~ent cause
Mr. Gary Sieb
July 30, 1991
Page 3 of $
for a variance. We also feel that the fact that the sale of the property, as well as the corresponding
deve_lo~pment._~nherent to the sale, appears to be dependent upon the variance clearly satisfies item
(2). Finally, I would refer you to Mr. Morfison's technical review of the floodplain analysis to address
item (3). Based on his review, Mr. Morrison is in agreement that the proposed reclamation plan
meets or exceeds all City of Coppell and FEMA guidelines.
I Would like to take this opportunity to stress the fact that we intend to make a complete submittal
to FEMA upon completion of the project. The submittal would serve as a detailed study for
establishment of the true calculated floodplain for Tributary G-1 of Grapevine Creek in this region-
We arc not attempting to circumvent any established technical design criteria for such projects.
However, we strongly feel that in this instance it is warranted that the City allow for the construction
as planned without a submittal for a conditional LOMR.
As representative of both buyer and seller in this issue, I would like to formally request a variance
of City of Coppell Ordinance No. 87390 4b (ll)(a) for the proposed reclamation as outlined in the
floodplain study submitted to the city.
I appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
D. Matthew Goodwin, P.E.
DMG/jc
CC:
Ms. Mary Stone Myers
Mr. Fred Joyce
Mr. Tim House
TRIBUTARY G1 ', ',~-----' '
/ ,,- %. l, %
.,-
..- "' I I