Town Center West-CS 990114Mr. 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 lanuary 8, 1999 r,~lrding the above referenced subject.
Although we basically discussed general concepts regarding this road in our earlie~
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-£oot front buildin~ line £or those stmcusr~ facin~ this new road is
2. Normally a 20-t'oot rear yard is required; we may be able to recognize a 15-
foot setback.
3. We would entertain a credit £or landscaping north of the street.
4. ¢ornme~:ial zoning should probably be changed to ?D Commercial to
accommodate possible variances to our development regulations.
S. A 2S foot fi'o.nt building line (see item #1) would necessitate all required
landscaping being placed on your p~.
6. Access to Denton Tap Road would, be based upon the site plan review process.
7. All oth~ development code provisions would be applicable.
8. Fire protection and drainage ~ssues 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
slreet, 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 internally.
The only point of disagreement that I note from your letter is the construction of
sidew~!lc~ in the development. In my recollection of our conversations, sidewalks would
not be the city's respons~ility, just as they are not in any othe~: 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 pwposal or going the eminent domain mute. 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.
Yours truly,
Gary L. 5ieb, A.I.C.P.
cc: Sim Witt
Ken Griffin
~/~ _ ~ r 7 vv~. ~v~ ....... ~ ~ ~.[ / ~ ~ ~ I
,- ~ ~ ,,' ~-- w ........................ ~- .......
..... ~ ~ - II1~ ..~_21 ~ ,, e~-~ .~ .... _ _~-' _ '-'--
: : ,, '~ '~
I ~~--uI JOE C. · GLEN A. HINCKLEY
.~ V~. 75201, PG. 1722 ~ TA~
~,--.
-' " -'~
}Il ~' '" - .....
- ~,-. .~~_ ~-- . _~=~. ~ -
~ w-- CITY ~ ~LL
COPPE~ ~[GH SC~O0~
~OU~ ~CCES~