ST9704-CS 990114 Coppell, Texas 75019
972-462-0022
COPPELL, TEXAS 75019 / ,, :,/{./~ ~ ~
/
Mr. Bill Anderson, P.E.
Dowdey, Anderson and Associates
5225 Village Creek Drive
PIano, Texas 75093
January 14, 1999
RE: Coppell High School Access Road
Dear Bill:
Thank you for your letter of January 8, 1999 regarding the above referenced subject.
Although we basically discussed general concepts regarding this road in our earlier
conversations, I do appreciate receiving the Site Plan that you faxed along with your
letter of intent.
Basically, I'd like to go down your list of potential development issues and respond
accordingly.
1. A 30-foot front building line for those structures facing this new road is
appropriate.
2. Normally a 20-foot rear yard is required; we may be able to recognize a 15-
foot setback.
3. We would entertain a credit for landscaping north of the street.
4. Commercial zoning should probably be changed to PD Commercial to
accommodate possible variances to our development regulations.
5. A 25 foot front building line (see item #1) would necessitate all required
landscaping being placed on your property.
6. Access to Denton Tap Road would be based upon the site plan review process.
7. All other development code provisions would be applicable.
8. Fire protection and drainage issues would have to be resolved by the affected
city departments.
The Planned Development zoning offers several advantages to the developer. You could
vary the rear yard setbacks; if credit was applied to the landscaped area north of the
street, you could reduce the amount of landscaping on site; we could accept only the
street paving as r.o.w., with easements for other utilities. Regarding driveways along the
street, the PD would control the number and distance between them.
Your comments regarding roadway impact fees, waivers, and developer costs would be
determined at time of development although I recognize that Ken, you, and I have
discussed the waiver of the fees in exchange for the right-of-way. We would proceed
with the development of this land noting that issue has been discussed intemally.
The only point of disagreement that I note from your letter is the construction of
sidewalks in the development. In my recollection of our conversations, sidewalks would
not be the city's responsibility, just as they are not in any other development here.
With regard to Council's reaction to this proposal, my observation is that they are
cautiously optimistic that the development review process will resolve any outstanding
issues. At this point however, much more detailed information would have to be
presented, and they pointed out to me that the public hearing process would accomplish
that desire. A PD would seem most appropriate at this time. Council is anxious to
resolve this issue and a PD application--perhaps a Concept Plan at this point--would
move us forward to a finite decision.
It goes without saying Bill, that the Planning Commission and City Council will make the
final decision regarding your proposal or going the eminent domain route. Ken and I
would truly like to resolve this without going to court, and I sensed that the Council felt
the same way. It all boils down to the plan you submit and if it is determined that the
plan is fair to us all--you, your client, and the citizens of Coppell.
I believe I have responded to the points outlined in your faxed letter (I never did receive
the original). If I can offer any additional guidance please contact me at your
convenience. As mentioned above, we are anxious to resolve this issue as quickly as
possible, so I urge you to proceed with alacrity.
Y truly,
· Sieb, A.I.C.P.
Ken Griffin
hsroad