Parks Coppell ABQ-CS 820608 CARTER BURGESS, INC. ENGINEERS · PLANNERS
1100 MACON ST./ P. O. BOX 2973/ FT. WORTH. TX. 76113 / (817)335-2611
June 8, 1982
Mr. Jim Elium
City Manager
City of Coppell
Coppell, Texas 75019
Reference: The Parks of Coppell
Dear Mr. Elium:
Our firm has been retained as consulting engineers for the referenced development in
your City. The development planning is under way. The purpose of this letter is to
determine the City's position and procedure on several matters pertinent to that
planning. It is our understanding that some of these matters have been discussed
with you on a conceptual basis. At this time, we need to determine specific proce-
dures the City will require. The matters in question are as follows:
1. As you are aware, the basic flood control procedure to be used in this
development is a dike berm system with detention ponds for interim
storage of internal drainage. It is the developer's proposal to
dedicate the berm and detention ponds to the City upon completion.
Therefore, we must be advised of the City's requirements pertaining to
the design and construction of these facilities to permit their later
acceptance for maintenance by the City.
2. It is our understanding that sidewalks are required at the time of
building construction rather than road construction. Is the construc-
tion of the sidewalk a requirement associated with the building per-
mits to be issued later for construction adjacent to the roads? Who
is ultimately responsible for construction of the sidewalks?
3. The developer proposes to construct at least one, and possibly more,
landscaped subdivision entries, with appropriate masonry walls, etc.
What guidelines would the City have for construction of these items
in order for the City to accept for maintenance after the subdivision
is completed?
4. It is the developer's present plan to build Parkway Boulevard from
Denton Tap to the east to Deforest Road, although the first phase resi-
dential developments will occur between Lodge Road and Deforest Road.
Although this imposes a heavy "offsite street cost" on the first phase
development, the developer feels it is desirable from the standpoint of
project identity and also from the City's standpoint with regard to its
proposed municipal center and park. There are several approvals we need
from the City if the construction of Parkway Boulevard to Denton Tap
Road is to be a reality in the first phase development, as follows:
C&B No. 8135701 & 8211702
The Parks of Coppell
June 8, 1982
Page two
(1) Parkway Boulevard is being designed to be a median divided
roadway between Denton Tap Road and Heartz Road. Between
Heartz Road and Lodge Road, the developer may continue the
median divided road or transition to a collector street.
In the area where Parkway Boulevard is to be median divided,
the developer requests the option to:
a. Either build the south lane only (a 24' paving section
curbed on both sides). The north lane~will be required
upon platting of the land adjacent to the north of Park-
way, much of which is proposed to be owned by the City.
b. Or build one-half of both the north and south lanes each
being one way traffic (two ll' paving sections with curb
on the outside only). The interior lanes and curb would
be required on platting of the land north of Parkway.
In the area (if any) where Parkway Boulevard is to be a collector
size street and is not a perimeter or internal street for the
proposed development, the developer requests the option to build
the south one-half (being a 22' paving section). Where one-half
of a collector street is built, a temporary asphalt rollup curb
could be used on the north side. One hundred percent of the
right-of-way will be dedicated with the first phase. Right-of-
way for the median divided street is proposed to be 74 ft. and
for the collector street the right-of-way shall be 60 ft.
(2) It is our understanding from the developer that the City will be
responsible for paying its prorata share of the cost of Parkway
Boulevard adjacent to the proposed municipal center site. Will
the City please confirm that these funds will be available upon
construction of the street.
(3) We understand from the developer that the City has agreed in cer-
tain cases to defer required perimeter street escrow monies so the
funds can be utilized for other streets within the development.
We would request that this policy be applied in the case of Park-
way Boulevard.
At the present time, the first phase residential development will
occur in the southwest quadrant of Parkway Boulevard and Moore
Road and/or in the northeast quadrant of that intersection; there-
fore, the normal perimeter street escrow requirements, which the
developer would propose to defer, would involve the following
areas:
a. The east half of Lodge Road from the south boundary of the
property to Parkway Boulevard.
The Parks of Coppell
June 8, 1982
Page three
b. The east half of Moore Road from the intersection of Moore
Road and Parkway Boulevard northward to the north boundary
of Phase I.
c. The west half of Deforest Road from the intersection of
Parkway Boulevard and Deforest Road northward to the north
boundary of Phase I.
The developer requests that the normally required escrow payments
for the abovementioned perimeter streets be deferred so those fund5
can be used for the off-site construction costs of Parkway Boule-
vard and/or Moore Road south of Parkway Boulevard to Sandy Lake
Road. The deferred perimeter street escrow funds would be paid
with later phases of the development pursuant to an agreement with
the City which shall be recorded and run with the land. The agree-
ment would encumber other parts of the development with the deferred
escrow payment. We need to know the City's requirements for this
procedure.
5. As you are aware, the developer has an unusual problem in the construc-
tion of Moore Road just north of Sandy Lake Road in that the road loca-
tion is adjacent to the property owned by Mrs. Barbara Austin for a
lineal distance of approximately 1220 feet. We understand that
Mrs. Austin may not be willing to participate in her prorata cost of
Moore Road at this time. If this is the case, the developer requests
the City's assistance in providing a way to collect those funds at a
later date. We suggest that the City enter into an agreement with the
developer whereby the prorata road cost, plus accrued interest, can be
required as a condition to the platting of the Austin property and
thereafter be forwarded to the developer. We also request that this
agreement contain an offset clause which would provide, so long as the
prorata road cost had not been collected, that the developer or its
assigns shall have the right to waive any other payments due to the
City, up to the amount of any outstanding balance under the agreement.
To the extent such offsets had occurred, the City would reimburse it-
self by retaining that amount of the funds paid under the agreement.
For example, the requirement for pa3nnent of park fees or platting fees
might be satisfied by offsetting the required amount of fees against
the City's obligation to collect funds under the agreement.
6. With respect to the offsite streets and some of the perimeter streets
in the development, right-of-way for those streets at the time the
plat is filed shall be across land that is encumbered by Deed of
Trust liens to the developer's lenders. The developer has an agree-
ment with its lenders to subordinate their lien to dedication of
right-of-way, but the lender will only subordinate the lien once the
streets are completed. Therefore, the developer must have the City's
agreement to accept and file the plat with certain rights-of-way shown
thereon being subject to certain liens until such time as the streets
are completed.
The Parks of Coppell
June 8, 1982
Page four
At the time of street completion, the liens will either be released or
subordinated to the right-of-way dedication and the City's acceptance
of the streets for maintenance can be conditioned upon that occurrence.
The developer needs the City's approval of this procedure and direc-
tion as to any legal requirements which the City may have in this
regard.
7. What are the City's signing requirements that may pertain to the sub-
division entrances and to billboards advertising the subdivision?
8. Lastly, we will appreciate an explanation of the political inter-
relationship of the City with the Coppell MUD #1. Also, what are
the specific procedures for obtaining (joint?) approval of utilities
and drainage for the subdivision?
We appreciate your assistance in these matters. We realize that some of the
requests may be outside of the normal City policy and may require consent of
others within the City.
Please advise us if you have any questions. Otherwise, we look forward to
your response at your earliest convenience.
Yours very truly,
CARTER & BURGESS, INC.
William C. Bell, P.E.
WCB:ddb
cc: Mike Allen - Univest
�B CARTER & BURGESS. INC.
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS
da& 11/6/81
/ i Pnc4ana n
File • Univest Floodplain
e tiwn Les Boyd
STATUS REPORT
_ Subsequent to the receipt of the field survey data we have performed the —
following items of work:
A. Plotted the cross - sections at scale of 1" =100' horizontal and 1 " =5' ver-
tical.
B. Reduced the cross - sections to coding for HEC -2 computer model of Denton
Creek.
C. Keypunched and established data files for the computer model.
D. Made computer runs using the 100 -year discharge to verify reasonable con-
formance with previously published flood - elevations.
E. Modified the computer model to determine floodway limits.
F. Refined the floodway determinations to maximize the amount of land to be
recovered.
G. Checked the encroachment model for sensitivity at certain problem sections.
H. Reviewed the results and conferenced with Bill Bell to check for general
reliability.
I. Made minor changes to model on the west side of Denton Tap.
CAB No. 81357 -05
ik
FILE COPY
o P. 0. Box ' \7s
C / -� 1;17 Coppell, Te as 7501• F 214. 462 • 1022
The City With A Beautiful Future
/12) 1
June 28, 1982 )0 )11
14\
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Denton Federal Center
Loop 288
Denton, Texas 76201
Attention: Mr. Dell Greer
Reference: Floodway Revision
Community Number 480170
City of Coppell, Texas
Dear Mr. Greer:
The City of Coppell respectfully requests that you review the enclosed
Floodway Revision material. We submit this data as a refinement based
on more accurate information than was available during the original
study, i.e., 2 foot contour mapping rather than 10 foot contours and
additional surveyed floodplain cross sections. Should you find the
material satisfactory we would further ask that FEMA approve the Flood -
way Revision and subsequently issue a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA)
for this segment of floodway located in the City of Coopell. The
affected Floodway Map is Community Panel Number 480170 0005 B, effective
date August 1, 1980.
Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated. If you
need any further information to aid in your review process, please call
truly ;o .'
j / k.
/ t \ %PKER J �
REC'
ames R. Elium, III J az2198a _c
City Administrator �,
\ FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY , g
g
Washington D.C. 20472 1 0 7 ,
)
August 2, 1982 IN REPLY REFER TO:
SL -NT -NH (123)
MEMORANDUM
Mr. R. Dell Greer, Chief
TO: Natural and Technological Hazards Division
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FROM: Richard W. Krimm
Acting Administrator, I
SUBJECT: Notification of the receipt of an appeal of flood boundaries along
Denton Creek and Cottonwood Branch on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
for Coppell, Texas
A request to revise flood boundaries on the Flood Insurance Rate
Map has been received. The request will be evaluated and you will be informed
of the outcome. A copy of the request is attached for your intormation.
44 /6 1 /‘-t,t7i-r,
Richard W. Krimm
Acting Assistant Associate Director
Office of Natural and Technological
Hazards
Attachment
FLOODWAY REVISION REQUEST
CITY OF COPPELL
Community Number 480170
MATERIALS
1. HEC -2 Printouts
a. Denton Creek Natural Conditions 10, 50, 100, 500 yr
b. Denton Creek Encroachment Run
c. Cottonwood Branch Natural Conditions 10, 50, 100, 500 yr
d. Cottonwood Branch Encroachment Run
2. Topographic Map - Exhibit A Containing:
a. 2 foot contour intervals
b. Scale 1" = 200'
c. Cross section locations
d. Delineation of proposed floodway
3. Flood Profiles
a. Sheet 11P - Denton Creek
b. Sheet 14P - Cottonwood Branch
1
CARTER & BURGESS, INC. ENGINEERS • PLANNERS
1 100 MACON ST. / P. 0. BOX 2973 / FT. WORTH. TX. 76113 / ( 817 )335 -261 1
June 25, 1982
Mr. James R. Elium
City Administrator
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Reference: Floodway Revision
City of Coppell
Dear Mr. Elium:
Carter and Burgess, Inc., on behalf of Univest Corporation, respectfully requests
that you review and then submit to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
the enclosed floodway revision materials. A floodway revision is being proposed
for a 2.16 mile stream segment of Denton Creek extending from DeForest Road to
approximately one half mile upstream of Denton Tap Road. The floodway revision
is being requested more as a refinement rather than a major change. Additional
topographic data and additional field surveyed cross sections have been obtained
which provide more accurate information than was available during the original
flood study performed for FEMA.
The regional office of FEMA was contacted at the onset of this study and they
provided input as to the proper steps to be performed in a floodway revision.
They also said that the Fort Worth District of the Corps of Engineers had
performed the detailed study for FEMA.
The source data that was used in the FEMA study was requested and received from
the Fort Worth District Corps of Engineers, Flood Plain Management Branch. This
data was formatted into a HEC -2 computer model.
The above data was supplemented by nine new field surveyed cross sections. The
new cross sections were spaced approximately 1000' apart and were approximately
7000' in length. They accurately covered the floodplain on both sides of
Denton Creek. The input from these cross sections was then added to the HEC -2
computer model of Denton Creek. -
The new flood study was performed in accordance with standard FEMA procedures
using the HEC -2 computer model. The floodplain was delineated on 2' contour
interval mapping. The original mapping was performed for FEMA on 10' contour
intervals from U.S.G.S. maps.
CAB No. R135701
Floodway Revision
City of Coppell
June 25, 1982
Page two
A new floodway configuration was determined in accordance with FEMA procedures.
Equal reductions in conveyances were made on both sides of the creek. The
more accurate data and flatness of the floodplain proved by engineering analysis
that the floodway line can be moved from the line marked 'A' to line 'B' on the
attached Exhibit.
Additional enclosures include flood profiles and NEC -2 computer printouts.
We trust this information is sufficient for submission to FEMA. Should you
need additional information for your submittal, please contact me. Please
confirm that the City of Coppell desires to make the Floodway Revisions requested
by signing in the space provided below.
Sincerely yours,
CARTER & BURGESS, INC.
r •
M. Leslie Boyd, P.E.
James R. Elium, City Administrator
MLB:ddb
Enclosures
cc: Mike Allen, Univest
NB CARTER & BURGESS. INC. ENGINEERS • PLANNERS
1100 MACON ST. / P. O. BOX 2973 / FT. WORTH. TX. 76113 / ( 617)335.2611
• April 14, 1982 •
Mr. James R. Elium
City Manager
City of Coppell
P. 0. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Reference: Floodway Revision
Denton Creek •
Dear Mr. Elium:
Carter & Burgess, Inc. was engaged by UNIVEST Corp. to prepare a
detailed flood study investigation on a stream segment of Denton
Creek. The stream segment is located in Coppell and is approxi-
mately 2.16 miles in length and extends from DeForest Road to
approximately one -half mile upstream of Denton Tap Road.
The flood investigation has been completed and floodway limits were
developed. We respectfully ask that you review all data submitted
herewith and consider whether this information is sufficient to
satisfy your needs.
A brief explanation of the investigation will be presented below so
that you will better understand the various processes and logic of
the new floodway configuration.
The last Flood Insurance Study for Coppell was published by FEMA in
1980.. The Flood Insurance Study engineering analysis was performed
by the Flood Plain Management Branch of the Fort Worth District
Corps of Engineers. A copy of the Denton Creek computer model card
deck was requested from the Corps of Engineers. A source deck was
not available since the analysis had been performed using the Thomas
program. The Thomas program was an in -house program used by the
Corps of Engineers. The current program most commonly used in flood
study investigations is HEC -2. HEC -2 is a water surface profile
program developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic
Engineering Center (HEC) in Davis, California. The input data
listing received from the Fort Worth Corps of Engineers was trans-
formed in format to that of HEC -2 for use in our investigation of
Denton Creek.
There were only two cross sections, excepting the bridge sections at
Denton Tap, within the stream segment of the UNIVEST property. In
its COPS
1 CbcB No. 8135701
Mr. James R ilium
April 14, 1982
Page 2
order to develop a more accurate stream model for the flood investi-
gation, nine additional cross sections were surveyed in September
and October of 1981. The locations of the new cross sections are
shown on Exhibit A. The data from these cross sections was coded
into the HEC -2 computer model. The construction of the computer
model was completed In October 1981. The Initial computer results
matched those shown for the 100 -year flood profile in the 1980 FIS
within 0.3 foot. This was considered to be a good check and verifi-
cation of the beginning computer model was assumed at this point.
Following the above verification of the basic model, the model was
updated to reflect existing hydraulic conditions. This consisted of
removing certain non- conveying pits located in a few of the cross
sections. The areas were not conveying since they were localized
depressions without continuity in the direction of flow. Once these
changes were made, the base flood elevations changed slightly. It
is this revised base flood profile which was used in later floodway
determinations .
Floodway determinations were accomplished in the following sequence:
1. Optimize the maximum encroachment to achieve close to one foot
rise above base flood at each cross section. This results in
an irregular shaped floodway which is generally not acceptable
to FEMA.
2. Modify the floodway configuration from the above step into a
smooth shaped floodway. Make additional computer runs and
trial changes until floodway is smooth and all increases above
100 -year base flood elevations are within acceptable limits.
The final floodway configuration as determined from the above
methods is shown on Exhibit A. It is this floodway which you are
respectfully requested to review.
HEC -2 computer results are being transmitted herewith to substan-
tiate all floodway changes.
We trust the information contained in this letter and attachments is
sufficient for your review process. However, if you have any
questions or need anything more, please feel free to call. Please
contact us after you have reviewed this material.
Sincerely yours,
CARTER & BURGESS, INC.
M. Leslie Boyd, P.E.
MLB /cb
Encl.
cc: Mike Allen FILE COPY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OP HOUSING ANO UREIAN DEVELOPMENT DATE
MEMORANDUM FOR FILE Z
TELE •NONE CALL 0 PERSONAL VISIT 13 APg. 5z
NAME. TITLE ANO ORGANIZATION OF CALLER (S1/ VISITORISI
m R. L E 5 'BoyD,
i-`J/ C A iZTE- * Z u ti ca a S I N e- "
P. C. zox 2.4
FT. L.iG;-.TH TEx
76.113
r 2- 1 - 9"- 335 - 2.!011
SUBJECT PROJECT NUMBER
FLOV 'J 1RE1/I tiie". R EG'cV CST FoP
.--- j TG /3 L iZ t. _ 1.4. ) ry THE e L r'' OF
lsOPPi =LL_ 1 a
ACTION REQUIRED ACTION TAKEN
COMMENTS:
MR, 1: - 5 UYID C. - AL LEI , TO 5 HY THAT HIS OIFIC -E c..)AS PREPAK/nJt. X+ PACKAGE
TO SL:am IT TU THE (. - dr vF CiP?r = RE4i.1c.5Tin%&:. A F LOVa4-‘)4Y RiliS /DN. .
N E- - I-.:A AS /Yll/vC THAT r1-fE ITY '^ - %vu r3PPR0t'E T►1E R .) A A-11:2
wO) _D FO -WARD IT TO FE7YI FOB OFFIQ1 r4P'PR-G✓Ae_ -. rnZ. .
L2U aTIC u:AS H4 =>e - 4LE S 7 - / - r E MAP Me t4'- A. TO ) rU 77 ft
Fr le_ A c.c. 'TH .i a3/1'l IT, = TCL i -(l/11 THFIT Ai' Se RT LE7157 AS LARGE
A 5 T}tE SCALE OF THC QFFICi ri LC- Y 1 L. L P1 A P Jtil-:;I_ID ? c /
T 1'E141P1, HE A ID THAT THEIR ell AP - SCi4LC C.:/45 SVMI= 4I,; -/AT' L14I - GE1Z 5V
TI - / }T THEY Q c HUV #-1 - e--E V& T7g}r� TiiAIV 1 OFFI CI pf ( ,r1/1 r TOLD
HI M THAT HI .f. Al A P Se-ALE 1,Joe_.)4-D l3E HCCt�T/=1 1 1 F THAT +..+A3 T }tC CA-SE.
O,.J 1 `t- AP.:. 8 z /Y1 k.. l c y D C�4LLEr) AGAI -J To _s AY THri- T 8Y c- s ;nle,
Na t.,) DATA, su % >}s eiz,vUs - EC"T %.5 EvE1 it fE. tz , 3 e. — ' STts - i_
1-. THE 36 rnE •1715 HE "► -t42D ET rvll.•.En T/t*T TrtE
1 0 O Y ETA R - F L.00 D E L E V v1 T/ OIt-1 1...)11 A- S 1 . ) < f f r4 3 O. [v °FEET tt I G H t=om
TH 16 nJ LA. HRT w .45 S 1fo N " THE CaY InJ T7+ a0 PP<LL- FIB,
r TOLD 11 i IP• 1 r 0 A H rD ft-A.); : 5., a rr7 I T 1 T 5 0 C O ' "3 e
R E V I El-t E--1E) 4') D / F 1= E 4 G 1z- t. 2) I-✓ , T H T 1t E ` E51 j s 0 F /4 1 5
STL) D4' TH C/U THE F 1 S ,t AJ7 4 CCO�v1 P4 fLI yl U /t'1RT'5 c ,) oL 2 3E RE1/,SET),
Coordinated with: _ 0 . -... 19„
Information Copi s to: �""
Confirmation Copy to:
TITLE ANO ORGANIZATION SIGNATURE
' C 710,.../141_}
HUD le -eat PREVIOUS EDITION MAY SE USED
P U.S. GOVERNMENT MIMIC ORICE: 1975/S71.11B/1263
U.S. OCPARTMtNT O/ RUSINO ANO Ur10AN OEVELOOM*NT GATE
MEMOR..NOUM FOR FILE
[ TELE ►NONE CALL 0 PERSONAL VISIT Lt. MA n g Z
NAME, TITLE ANO ORGANIZATION O/ CALLER IS)/ VISITOR IS)
1 2, y LAA)E
F r. 1, 3 n1ZT TX
r 7 to It
7- 1 1 3 - 9- 51- H-91o�
su.JECT 'PROJECT NUMBER
t'I_(�( �� -AI I) ZNF03Z W1fa T"lo, Foil
Pf:oT'C(2Ty t_U CATE - D •ti 1THl J TH
l! 4 i OF e U PPEZL - E xt .
ACTION REQUIRED ACTION TAKEN
COMMENTS:
M . I-I CALLED Fi".) L i 1 F O 1'18 PitoID EK.T`( TED, ITfq /N
TttE Q 4TY c>F L/ vPPiZL 1 S )A) ,THE 100-Y E iZ FL.00�FLAIA) PF DEAJ7-OA)e1= c.
T F' RcP .RTY 15 30 t..) aED oN 711E v 4_) 73Y -5 RN LAKE PoAD ON T1fE
T 7 3 i DE FU I:E -! ' oAD • 0/0 TH E I.J857 SY �1= TO h i �R ROq-z):,
v i t1 AJ L., R.TN 13 1 D 7 C i& EaX - = i 17� H QIV - r 1-t A - r A
5vF (-)7A11∎) ; t AL poi" T It)iv O F TH 1 : ?PD ER.T*r c E - r 4.4-+ ;THrro 771
WO- E ? F Lo o .D TEL /-i I /NJ , T m A 1 L E 1 A G o P Y O F T I+ A T P o RT 4 ON u F 7
FI Z1v FUG C - &PPl_L(. SATED I Al>Cr So TO / 14o12..IJ i= 01Z 111 5 [.)SE • Z AL.50
FI��IV D )I I '1 (LA) P ✓ OF THE FLCCYD A 111 P P FUZZ Q OPPc - 1.-L ALc,t
s T1-1 ,- I✓C:P 0 F T H C.o MUti ; T' SPRIGS 1-4_c t)L4:41Y T3our =LET
AN y7 R ✓✓ r ' V F TttE /3 FI P 11EC.Ui_ N s.
I
Coordinated with
Information Cop' s to:
Confirmation Copy to:
TITLE ANC ORGANIZATION T SIGNATU E
NUO -134 IR -es) ►.tv,ous (01TION MAY ea UsaO C\ ��VV
coves KMI PRIFTIIC (MICE: 1075 /01- I111/1235
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND MOAN DEVELORMEMT - DATE
MEMORANDUM FOR FILE
Air"'' TELEPHONE CALL 0 •ERSOMAL VISIT . :2- 1 41' RI L MANIC TITLE ANo ORGANIZATION OF CALLER (Sl/ VISITOR ISI
m om, TI vv. L (ENG //.JE-E-R)
LVworz .Z�,-- i- 11 � oc / HT -.s
- 17) ALL gS, - 1 -- X oci ±-
1 7 -9 -' 3 31D'{
SUOJECT PROJECT NUMOER
)._ D M A T F 1 /V D F :- o o D s- REV/ �7 i S v iJ
RE QUIiZ 1 E !'V T 5 Foil PKOt
L b C A TF 1 nJ it E. r? 1 r 0 F
C opPELt_, Tor X.14 _S
ACTION REQUIRED ACTION TAKEN
COMMENTS:
/AZ. L. AC- CALLED A - r. ASKED p1 T LOi1 s
/ - y,va FL.coa u. a4
K E V I S i V n -J TZ E Ca u 1 T.'_ C. Al Elk.) T . Z 13 tz 1 EF L £.X Pt_ /4 / n.; E 111E Tea 0 INFFEREv ,
PRocEC.:;_.; E 5 TO H/i 11i ) TDI- 14irV' TH/rT r eDuL_]D Fc_' Ld /SH C:C P/ES GF
THE. GC!1Pc ro SULH REQUEST �, MR. LAC.t <EY SA/1'7 THAT HE
bJDU 7 L1KE Tip V1 S IT Hi 0F1=1 L` T'CSZ :ati?/4 -c_ t_r 4N7 RCSc
P 1 P -U P O ET 'V) � E V E t Pr) C.: "-IT F - 7 -- H C C 1 T `,° OF C..-Cr PtL.L. A' J:D H c=
C 7 t L , < - L) 7 INt. 6 GJia)c_L ,11 iH,4! 'TtrY)E. NC L,,� C
11k) CL) Of =F C Al 9: 30 '1.f1. 0 A.J r1- 1D111' 3M rRi3L,
Coordinated with:
0
Information Copi to:
Confirmation Copy to:
TITLE ANO ORGANIZATION SIGNATURE 510.A.71.S'el
HU0�734 16 -601 PREVIOUS EDITION MAY •t[ USED S YYrEIIMIC OFFICE: 1975/671. 11S /1203 ,
U.$. OE'ARTMENT OP NOUSINO ANO MEAN DEVELOPMENT GATE
MEMORANDUM FOR FILE
Q TELEPHONE CALL c PERSONAL VENT 30 A Piz I L 82,
NAME. TITLE ANO ORGANIZATION OP CALLER IS)/ VISITOR (•)
Z. T, M LACKE
E
�aLLS}S�
-Fa A
7- q -93�- 31o't
SUOJECT _ PROJECT NUMOER
L0/11/4 HND &LOUDw.4Y J�CVtStVnJ
PEC11.;1 rZEmErJi5 r-oiZ Pre_ 0 Pe - LTY
Lo
ACTION REQUIRE° ACTION TAKEN
COMMENTS:.
MK. LAL' YEY V l S I Tt0 ThYc OF FtC.E in) To F / /l.'_AD DUT 4)Ht=1 HC
MU5 i po TO NAV Ez 1 Y tic» -io ✓ tD F' 1`c - T7tt FL.00•PL,'i•11.
o/n U r=r - 1 - tt PRo1�L`�tr '4 S PFE.D (c; 1Z c,t ) -1E� THE Fet_
116- r T Cr c_GPPc'tL I Ht PR-C ? 7 t5 cT Y 1 S f► LC- c Cc ra.v
rV Or E S i D c /} nJ -� D G7� -U/V C V —r �l� c /i. AFL U 1 t:EZZ S t 17C , M t LoiC'.sc
Hr}S r+ Su21JcY w tTlf - Foc r Top v w NtQ i+ S/{c‘..:s — 1+E F LOODPL ri /N
1 3 D 1 F F E=12,- r T /Ili rJ c"--
... rl q T on) 1 F 1 / 4 F [3 F41
>_ x P L- f i t N ED THE Ft--00 Ell I S r o N L 0 rri A PR c C ES -5 ro N/ r+4 r4N.17
F IiNIS( +ED If1fv t✓LPI F THE= FO /"1) ,,F11 N7 TIC
q ,v7 C 1zt T E -IA Fog Lv/v1/1 5 j F I A iFoLICY /ZEViSrc..S zEd/FX61J
FL co_010A 'f REti1 S:L PR. pt.ESStD M4 1EGlo.v.41_ CF>=(c -t S, lU So'-- Si
I-,00 Re..vt51e,..;, Zcf 'Sum & ∎ .)1s 5 `zUfatuG
f' L00r:, �t7 IZ E1/1 SI C^r -`� 2 )CT E •
COP`:' VF Ttt C Fi 3 Fog- 1sTLTCEn 'rt.'
4, At— .SU rvrt..�� S HED MR_ LJ -K � E . LJ.TN A p
trv Ct_uD:.v V F n'l '}A) F 51-N'I j l-IS FC- /'1J�o1� R
ti -ILK(.../tn.'- F=2/
AND F I3 F /YiJ /#2P? ?SZT?CE..5 V I HE �A iz- i%DLLTc.)• F-L _5 A')A-PS_
Coordinated with: Vg
Information Copies to:
Confirmation Copy to:
TITLE AND ORGANIZATION SIGNATURE
LI° 1(YL- 7 . ) ‘
HUD -734 e— es) PIeEVIOUs EDITION MAY SE USED •
ST mimic t/TCC: 1975/671-111/1263