Northlake WE P10B-CS 930326· 03/26/93 16:49 002
HENDERSON BRYANT & WOLFE
VZA FACSIMZLE (214) 393-0948
Hr, Alan Ratlift
City #an&gar
City et Coppell
P. O. Box 478
CoPi;~ll, TX 75019
Ro~ When. her J'ppl$cmnt for Plat on Northlake Woodlands Phase
Dear Mr. Ratlift:
You have asked whether Lhe app~icant for a plat tot NorthXakm
Woodlandm Phase 10 ~ Am required to pay ~e ~eeeunder ~e new Cl~y
of coppell impact ordinance, when the a~plicant had previously
received approval f3r a final plat, paid ~ees, and =~en Aad fa~led
to complete f£1ing of the plat aB read/ired by tie ordinance. The
calculated am~, asa~UBO4 under tho n~w impac~ fee ordinance. The
applican~ ehould boent~l~O & C~ed~ fOr money previouslypa~.
The applicant w~11 therefore have to pay =he difference be=ween the
old fee and the new fee.
After our conversation concernin~ the Nor~hla~e Woodlands
Phase 10 D plat, ! ~eceived your letter and the documents you sen~.
! have spoken witk C~ty Engineer, Mr. Griffin, co~¢erning the
questions met out ~n my letter of March 22, ~993. It is my
und~rstanding that ae hau be~n unable to find any in~ica~ion that
~he City Council ever agreed to extend the deadlines ~he appl£can=
had for f~l~ng tam plat. Further, I understand there is no
ind£cation that th~ applicants were ever told that the deadlines
for filing the final plat had been extended, or that the payment of
the u~£pinal tees w~uld uomehow exemp~ them from the req~irement$
of complying w~h new ordinances if the plat was no= timely filed.
Mr. Alan Ratliff
March 26, 1993
Page 2
I understand that Subdivision Ordinance No. 341 was in
in 1988 when the ap~licant's original £inal plat was approved and
the a~l~cant fa~led to file the plat. ~ understand that the
ordinance was In e~feot in 1986 and 1987 when Phases A & ~ were
10 of tho Su~divisiun Ordinance specifically providest
Cf=y Cou~cAI~ the plat shall be de--ed null and void~
r~gula~ions sh~ll apply.
The city's f~s~ Impact Fee Ordinance No. 90478 con~ainl
similar p~ovis{ons. Section 1.2~ exempts from the ordLnance o~ly
~lng and which ha~ not
~n Nove~r 1991 the City pa~sed ~noth~r Impa~t Fee
~mposed by and calculated h~reunder.
Section 1.09(D} of ~he n~w Ordinance provides:
Following ~he Lapse or expiration of approval for a ~lat~
Based Upon the doc~ents you have sent, the ordinances which
the fee ~o the purchase prl=~ of th~ easemenC. However, ~ou would
want ~o be careful abou~ th~ final price per acre wh~c~
easements to ad. ire. You may e~n have to e~gage i~ condemna~io~
proceedlng~. If the entire difference between the new impac= fee
and th~ pa~ents made under the old ordinance are applied ~o
Mr. Alan Ratliff
March 26, 1993
Page 3
foot may bm extremely high. This calculation, and any subsequent
negotiationa, will be political and financial decision9 whic~ yOU
mu~t make, bearin~ in mind tht tf£ec~ on acqu~si=~on of other
eamemants and possible condemna~ion of easements.
filed. The city h~ ~he legal power to negotiate for an easement
appraisal and value;ion probl~m~. I= would be cleaner =o have ~ho
full fee paid, and then have the Cl~y cu~ a separate cAeo~ ~O pay
for the easument.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions concerning ~hls
matter.
Ve~ truly yours,
Ronald H. Clark
lUlC/sew