Riverview Estates-CS 911008COPY
ME~O
TO: Gary L. Sieb, Director of Planning and Community Services
~F/M. Shohre Daneshmand, Acting City Engineer~
FROM:
SUBJECT: Riverview Estates, Preliminary Plat
Floodplain Management
DATE:
October 8, 1991
Gary Hendricks of Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea, representing the City of
Coppell engineering department during DRC meeting, had made Mr. Mike
Daniel of Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, Inc. aware that this
property is within the limits of the 100-year floodplain. It was
indicated to him by Mr. Daniel that this development is part of the
existing Riverchase Reclamation Project.
Please note that it has always been clear to us that a tract of land known
as Johnny Thompson's property is within the 100-year floodplain. (See
attached copy of memo to Greg Jones of Building Inspection, dated
2/25/91). However, the connection was not made between Riverview Estates
and Thompson's property until now.
The above referenced development is within the limits of 100-year
floodplain and shall comply with our Floodplain Ordinance #87390. The
developer must also obtain two (2) permits, being the floodplain
development permit, from the City of Coppell, and a Corridor Development
Certificate (CDC), since this property is within the Regulatory Zone of
the Trinity River Corridor.
Staff does not have any objection to the preliminary plat as long as the
above comments are addressed prior to the approval of the final plat and
plans.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
cc: Gary C. Hendricks, Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea
RIVER2
COPP~LL PUBLIC WORF~
Iq~4ORANDUM
DATE: /February 25, 1991
/
TO: /Greg Jones, Building Inspector
FROH~ ~Shohre/ D aneshmand, Acting City Engineer
Fill at Johnny Thompson's Property
(Sandy Lake Near the Eastern City Limit)
I have reviewed the correspondence related to the above referenced request for
fill permit, and a possible floodway map revision request made back in 1983 for
Mr. Thompson's 25 acre land located on the south side of Sandy Lake Road. Based
on Staff's review and findings, and limited information provided, Staff does not
recommend issuance of fill permit at this time. Please note the following
comments:
- It appears that FEMA had requested the City of Coppell to provide
two items in support of subject floodway change. Said items were a
formal letter of request, which has been furnished, and a resolution
or amendment to the floodplain ordinance reflecting this floodway
change. There is no indication that FEMA's second requirement was
ever met.
- In the past several years there has been a major change in FEMA's
maps and studies, as they related to the Elm Fork of Trinity River.
As per our latest floodplain maps, it appears that this area of
Sandy Lake Road is in the 100-year floodplain and periodically, is
subject to flooding.
We need to have more technical data and documents before this permit is
recommended for approval and they, as minimum, are:
- A grading plan showing the existing and proposed contours, the
floodplain lines, etc., certified and sealed by an RPS, and a P.E.
in the State of Texas.
- Staff recommends the no loss in valley storage be allowed.
- Provide COE's wetland determination, and if applicable, the COE's
404 Permit must be obtained.
- The applicant must comply with the Floodplain Ordinance 987390, and
any state and federal requirements.
Please note that although the subject property appears to be out of floodway,
said property is still within floodplain limits. Therefore, I highly recommend
that sufficient document be submitted to the City and be forwarded to Mr. Ron
Morrison of Kimley Horn & Associates for evaluation. Mr. Morrison's floodplain
review fee, per Ordinance 989438.1, is to be ~aid by the applicant with no cost
to the City.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Steve Goram, Director of Public Works
Dale Jackson, Building Official
JOHNN1.MSD
1.3 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVmES AFFECTED
Any public or private development within the Regulatory Zone of the Trinity River Corridor must obtain
8..CDC prior to start of any development activity, unless specifically exempted as discussed in
S~ction 1.4 EXEMPTIONS AND VARIANCES. A development activity means "any manmade change to
improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining,
dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling operations." To assure consistency with TWC
requirements, development activity also includes "any levee or other improvement''.
A development activity by a city within the Trinity River Corridor will be treated like any other application
for a CDC and will undergo the COE permit process, and if applicable, the regional review and comment
process discussed later. To avoid conflicts between adopted policy and city ordinances, the municipal
application will then be considered and acted upon by that jurisdiction's policy-making body, e.g., City
Council.
NOTE:
Throughout this CDC Manual the term 'City' is used. However, in unincorporated areas,
the respective county or special district would be applicable.
3
4.0
~ five basic steps in the CDC application review process as del~cted in the accompanying chart and
st~mmarized follows:
NOTE: Threugheut thi~ CDC Manual lhe term'Cily' is used, however, in unincorporated areas, the reepective
ceunl~ would be applicable.
Step 1. Determination of Appticabilitv by City - Does the City have jurisdiction regarding this
application? Is it w#hin the Trin~ River Corridor? Is it within the Regulatory or Review Zone?
Is it exempted-fr°m the I~ocess? ff the City has jurisdiction for the project, the review process
proceeds, ff not, the City' informs the Applicant in writing.
Step 2.
Jurisdictional Review by coE - The Fort Worth District staff of the COE will perform the
jurisdictional review and provide preliminary hydraulic/hydrologic technical data required by
the. common permit criteria in coordination with the City and the Applicant. This review will
occur within.thirty (30)' days of submittal to COE, provided ALL required data has been
received.
· Step 3.
Notice of intent, to Process, by City - The City will review the application materials and COE
findings within its own time frame. If the City decides to deny the application at this point, the
process ands.. NCTCOG will be provided a copy of this action. If the City decides to
continue the process, then it will assure that the application is complete, assign a CDC
idantirmation number, and provide the full application to the COE for a permit determination,
to FEMA if a conditional map revision is required, to the Texas Water Commission if their
jurisdiction applies, and to NCTCOG for incorporation into the TRIN tracking system.
Step 4.
Parallel COE, FEMA, TWC, and Reqional Review - If the application is subject to a COE
individual permit, then the public notice and review/comment process will be initiated by COE
(including the other affected local govemmants). If the application is not subject to a COE
individual permit, then the City will distribute a notice and materials directly to the other
signatories to the Interlocal Agreement. The FEMA and TWC review processes will occur
simultaneously.
If under COE jurisdiction, COE will decide whether to issue its permit and so notify the City
and Applicant. Likewise, FEMA will notify the City regarding any requested conditional map
revision and the TWC for any plan of reclamation. Signatories of the Interlocal Agreement will
have thirty (30) days from receipt of the Notice of Intent to Process to provide the City with
written comments. Time extensions for the written comments may be granted by the City.
If no response is received from a participating entity during the comment period, it is assumed
that a 'no response' implies no comment for documentation purposes. Applicant appeals
from the permit decision may be sought from the individual jurisdiction.
Step 5.
Formal Cit~ Action - The final step in the application review process is formal approval,
approval with conditions, or disapproval by the City within the CDC area. If a COE permit,
a FEMA conditional map revision or a TWC plan of reclamation is denied the Applicant, the
City will not issue a CDC. If approved by the City over the expressed unfavorable opinions
of other signatories to the Interlocal Agreement, a written summary of the justifications for the
City's action will be attached to the approval action. A copy of the Final Disposition of each
CDC application will be provided to NCTCOG for the permanent Corddor records.
12
If no development activities occur by the end of five years from the date of issuance, the applicant may submit
a written request within thirty days for up to a three-year extension or the CDC permit shall cease to be valid.
The City may grant up to a three-year extension. If no request for an extension is made at the end of the
.. thirty day period, the Applicant mUst reapply for a CDC permit. Summary project status reports are required
to be submitted to the CDC/Floodplain Administrator annually. Any significant changes to the project by the
Applicant or the City requires the re-evaluation of the permit and may result in a reapplication. Summary
project status reports are required to be submitted to the CDC/Floodplain Administrator annually. Any
significant changes to development plans, including changes in State and Federal regulatory programs after
a permit is granted, requires the re-evaluation of the perm~ and may result in a reapplication.
Any appeals to the CDC process should be addressed to the appropriate CDC permitting authority, (i.e., city) and
that authority's permit appeals process.
13
R[~ONNAI~ANCE
REPORT
VOLUME II - APPENDICES
UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN
TRINITY RIVER, TEXAS
COOPERATIVE IHTERJURISDICTIONAL MANAGEMENT
COMMON PERMI'rlNG PROCESS
TRINITY RIVER CORRIDOR AND GREENBELT
~..~. ---....."'I ' '" w0' '""'
--~-..~ ~ALLAS- FORT
MARCH 1990
~ii.~i~' 'Spectftc Bodtftcatl~s/eddtttons of the E1e Fork storege And
ve Ance mdels tnClude, the proposed RoyAl Line brtdge, the proposed
co.n. ?. - _, L_,J__ ,,~, -,~e CmlOlete representation of .the.up.p.er
[11 Fork (upstreal of ZndtAn Creek) due to A comprehensive set or OATA
And topographic lips in thts Ir~A.
LZST OF PRO~ECTS ('G~HDFATH£R£D")
The follovtng ts A ltst of pro3ects represented in thts
ReconnAtssan.ce_St.uc(y [xt. stt~ ~C?_ndt.?_o_~nsTh_~cd~crAu~trct~l°d:~x:c~flt~h:t~lonI of
Fork And Yest ForK. #erer ~o ~fll Tlflll /~G&4
.v
these pro3ects. Vhere ApplicAble, these pre3ects Are Also shovm on the
ftgures shorn tn chapter 4 of the litn report.
LAs Col 1nAs
Stemmons North ZndustrtA] Dtstrtct
LAs Co]tnAs Servtce Area
Ro~] L~ R~]mtt~
LAkes of L~
C&r~11 t~/Fi~rs BrAnch Levfl Dtstrtct
Z~t~ Levee Dtstrict ~. Z
Be]t LtH ~stness Park
Ftll ~3~t (~t blt Ltne Roed)
RtveKhase
Carmllton La. f111
Lakes of Cop~11
Git~ RKlatton
Trtntty Htlls hstness Park
Dallas ~rsertes
Lake~tnte
titers Rt~ Z
Hufftnes ~nch
MrtcG Container La,f111
Fairs BraKh La. fl11
'Htghl~ Pirk La.f111
Connel 1
Rtve~a~
~s~ ~yal La~ Brt~e
~o~M hlt LtN ~ed Brt~e
Zrvt~ FI~ Cont~l Otstrtct ~. ~ Levfl (~K~st Lev~)
TRA NostevAter TreAtment PlAnt
Zrvtng Landft11
GrAnd PrAtrte LAndft11
CArllsle
Htdpotnte '(GP~JRD project At Belt Ltne Road)
Riverside
Ar1 t ngton LAndftll
VtllAge Creek SewAge TreAtlent PlAnt
B-8