Loading...
Big Cedar-CS 910701GOODWINi ARSHALL July 1, !991 Mr. Gary Sieb Director of Planning and Community Services City of Coppeil 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019 CIVIL ENGINEERS ~,- r~I-ANNERS ~ SURVEYORS Development of Proposed University Park Project, Located on Bethel School Road, Coppell, Texas Dear Mr. Sieb: I appreciate you providing the time necessary to meet and discuss the development related aspects of the proposed University Park project with myself and Mr. Tim House on Thursday, June 27, 1991. In our meeting you expressed the desire for all parties to proceed with finalizing a solution to the Bethel School Road issue. 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. The remaining portion of Bethel School Road is to be upgraded by the adjacent landowners based on front footage calculations. The parties involved have had preliminary discussions on this issue. However, one final issue remains to be solved prior to addressing the cost sharing of the road improvements. As we discussed on Thursday, this issue is related to floodplain reclamation of a small portion of the University Park project. As we discussed, the property is currently under contract to Matthews Southwest Investments, represented by Mr. 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 floodplaim Based on this fact, it has been our intention to perform 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 purpose 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 minimi~ the extent of reclamation, while maximizing the amount of natural foliage left remaining in this area. The existing tree coverage and creek are 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 mind, I 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 FEMA in support of the floodplain delineation. Instead, the floodplain is drawn based on contours and backwater effects from downstream hydraulic 6001 BRIDGE STREET, SUITE 100/ FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76112 / 817-429-4373 (METRO) Mr. Gary Sieb July L lOOl Page 2 of 3 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 process of notification and appeals for regions proposed for inclusion into the Nationwide Flood Insurance Program. During this 90 day period, any owner or lessee of real property in the community who believes 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, Goodwin and Marshall, Inc. (G&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 boundaoj of the city itseff. 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, Ms. Mary Myers, 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 stand the chance of being required to submit to FEMA for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision prior to commencing with construction. It is this issue that we would like to address at this time. As we discussed in our meeting, it is the intention of Matthews Southwest and Mrs. Myers that all City floodplain regulations be met or excexxled. Enclosed is a detailed floodplain analysis which accurately defines the existing conditions floodplain as wcH as a proposed plan of reclamation. As discussed above, 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 is outlined in the enclosed flood study. The detailed study shows that all City and FEM_A guidelines for floodplain development are met or exceeded with this proposed reclamation plan. I have met with the City's engineering consultant, Mr. Ron Morrison, to discuss thc methodology employed in the study. Of course, since Mr. Morrison was responsible for a great deal of the original flood studies in this area, he was well aware of the situation. Based on this meeting, I feel that we are in agreement as to the methods utilized in the engineering work presented herein. However, I understand that our discussions did not represent a detailed review, and welcome Mr. Morrison's formal review and comments. As representative of both buyer and seller in this issue, I would like to request the following course of action in this matter, ff upon detailed review by the City staff and Mr. Morrison, the reclamation plan is found to meet all City requirements based on Ordinance No. 87390, as well as all requirements established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, then the City will issue a Floodplain Development Permit for the project. The construction of the reclamation project is intended to take place during the ninety day appeal period as described above. At the end of construction we will submit an "As Built" flood study which will serve as the detailed study for the region. This process will significantly shorten the time flame involved, while insuring that all City and FEMA requirements are met. Mr. Gary Sieb July 1, 1991 Page 3 oi3 Gary, I would like to emphasize again that it is our intention to meet or exceed all City and FEMA requirements for floodplain reclamation projects. The process as outlined above will insure that this is the case. The purpose of this methodology is to shorten the time frame involved, while still insuring that all requirements are met. The request is made based on the very unusual circumstances surrounding this particular case. Upon arriving at a solution to this problem it is the intention of all parties to initiate the necessary dialogue for the final solution to the Bethel School Road situation. The process as recommended above will result in a speedy resolution to all issues of concern to the City and the developer, and appears to be in the best interest of all parties involved. 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. Tim House x 5t9.0 I"- l{ N-46~00(3 x MATCH SHEET · xS~LO ),~3f~ ml)I~3LO6Y/B~I~G, ~ic. c~.~/ o~' co~?.~, r~$ 518.3 LI MATCH ~SHEET 10 IO0-YEAR _il