Loading...
Alexander Ct-AG070828 (3) DEPT: Engineering DATE: August DATe ~Hf)UL.P '& ITEM #: 21 AIk(;v..s1::2 _,20oj ~ AGENDA REQUEST FORM THE CITY.OF corrELL .~~., .. ,*' ,"~ ,.. -. /'. tl C q .t .-\ .5 \ &, o WORK SESSION o CONSENT [(] REG s'C~ Q'fMda. ITEM TYPE: PRESENTATION ITEM CAPTION: Consideration of appeal from John Hawkins regarding impact fees and other development requirements related to Alexander Court. GOAL(S): !BJ ~ IIII o EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is the action item related to the consent agenda item regarding a developers right to appeal certain development fees if the developer believes a proportionality argument can be made, The developer will be presenting the information they believe warrants your consideration, The back-up materials provided will give you additional information regarding this issue. FINANCIAL COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL: '. [ NOT APPROVED J Motion to grant the Applicant $3,265.84, being the difference between the Right-of-Way granted and the cost of the street impact fees, and to deny the rest of the appeal. and instruct the City Attorney to investigate the cost of the Right-of-Way provided by the City for the wall along Denton Tap M - Tunnell S - York Vote - 6-0 Franklin absent . Libby Ball ~ 20070920 11 3843 -05'00' I#alexander court ITEM # 20. -7f 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ITEM DESCRIPTION and posting of notice; authorizing the City Manager to execute an Election Agreement and Election Services Contract with Dallas County Elections Department; and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Ordinance. Consider approval of a variance with stipulations for an Interim Permit, upon concurrence of City Engineer, to Floodplain Management Ordinance No. 2001-952, Article 4, Section B, Item 11 (a) which states that the Floodplain Administrator must "Assure that conditional approvals are received from FEMA before a Floodplain Development Permit is issued." for the proposed Alexander Court subdivision, an 18.506 acre housing development at the northwest corner of Denton Tap Road and Bethel Road. Consideration of appeal from John Hawkins regarding impact fees and other development requirements related to Alexander Court. Mayor and Council Reports. A. Report by Mayor Stover regarding the Susan G. Komen "Dig for A Cure" Event on September 21. Council Committee Reports. A. Carrollton/Farmers Branch ISD/Lewisville ISD - Councilmember Tunnell. B. CoppelllSD - Councilmembers Peters and Faught. C. Coppell Seniors - Councilmembers Brancheau and Faught. D. Dallas Regional Mobility Coalition - Councilmember Peters. E. Economic Development Committee - Mayor Pro Tem Hinojosa- Flores and Councilmember Franklin. F. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) - Councilmember Brancheau G. Metrocrest Hospital Authority - Councilmember Tunnell. H. Metrocrest Medical Foundation - Councilmember Tunnell. I. Metrocrest Medical Services - Mayor Pro Tem Hinojosa-Flores. J. Metrocrest Social Service Center - Council member Tunnell. K. North Texas Council of Governments - Councilmember Brancheau. L. NTCOG/Regional Emergency Management - Councilmember Franklin. M. North Texas Commission - Councilmember York. N. Senior Adult Services - Councilmember Faught. Necessary action resulting from Work Session. Necessary action resulting from Executive Session. og082807 Poge 5 of 6 oa. "."""....,,, ,~/ ~ C[I1l CORPORATION (d/ Pl t Master Planned Living Mr. Clay Phillips Deputy City Manager City of Coppell August 7, 2007 Re: Alexander Court Unresolved Development Exactions Dear Sir, Since our 7/19 meeting, my engineer has been revising our engineering plans per Ken Griffin's instruction. I delivered the latest revised set on Friday. All comments have been responded to and corrected. Our plans should be ready for fmal approval today. In the interest of saving the project, we must proceed with the plans as approved, though some items may need to be discussed and resolved. This letter is provided to supplement, not replace, my letter to Ken. Per my letter of 7/9 and as we discus~ although we have come to agreement on several points, many issues remain without a resolution. For that reason, we look forward to accepting your offer to meet with the Council on 8/14. It was our understanding that you thought they could consider waving certain restrictions, under the proper circumstances and with that in mind, we plan to submit the following issues for their consideration and resolution: 1) ROLLED CURBS are a desirable alternative to standard curbs and as such, have been requested by David Weekley Homes. Coppell Fire Lanes are 24' F-F or 25' B-B. If the Fire Dept. finds this acceptable, why would they have difficulty traveling on a 24' G-G section with 28' B-B and no vertical curb obstruction? It appears that they would have more unobstructed room to maneuver than a 28' B-B road with standard curbs, not less. Although we have changed our plans to build standard curbs, we believe rolled curbs are the most aesthetically pleasing. 2) EXTRA INLETS on Knights Way are not necessary, according to my engineer's interpretation of what is required according to acceptable engineering practice. The intersection of Knights Way and Olympia Lane was designed with broader 36' radius curb returns, which allows the water to diffuse more rapidly. Because of this larger transition area, maximum run otffrom Knights Way into Olympia would blend with the South gutter run offfrom the East and sheet flow to the West; ultimately being deposited in the inlets in front oflot 4 and between lots 16 and 17. The water carrying capacity of Knights Way is sufficient, without the inlets. In my opinion, these inlets are not a proportionate response to any need created for the City and an extra $ 12,000 expense for the property owner. Page One of Three 6003 Sunderland Drive · CoUeyvllIe, 1exas 76034 TeL (817) 996-6698 · Fax (817) 3Z9.1792 Alexander Court Exactions Page Two of Three 3) TREE MITIGATION should exclude trees within the public R.O.W.. There are more than 60 trees, from 6" to 24" diameter, in the dedicated street R.O. W., which should be excluded from the tree count and be more proportional, thus reducing the tree liability from 1,500 to 900 caliper inches and reducing the fee to $ 19,000. This represents a cost savings of S 15,500. Additionally, an individualized tree mitigation detennination would properly take into consideration the fact that some 30% of this tract is in the flood plain and all the trees between the flood plain line and the creek are being left in their native state and will not be developed. This natural state should be added credit, which would mitigate the fee. Again, this additional factor shows the City's requirements to not be proportionate in our case. 4) A SIDEWALK ON DENTON TAP is a public improvement and not relative to any proportional need by the City, caused by this or any benefit accruing to the residents of Alexander Court. There is no purpose or utility in building a sidewalk in this location; with no practical connection to the North, no public necessity or justifiable need for the additional S 7,000 expense. Is it not true; if the property were not being platted, the record owner would not be asked to pay for a sidewalk ? 5) RAISED BUll..DING PADS are not proportional or necessary, according to FEMA requirements. Creek lot building pads are normally below the top of curb. All pad elevations are a minimum of 1 ' above the ultimate 100 year flood line. This is according to City ordinance. There is no justifiable reason to believe the subject building sites are in any danger of flooding. To raise these pads I' above the curb is a disproportionate cost of an additional S 5,000. 6) FILL DIRT IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, WIder these circumstances, is a reasonable accommodation and an accepted practice according to FEMA. If FEMA does not approve the new line, I will agree to remove the dirt; the City has no liability. Allowing this fill to be placed in the flood plain would compensate Mira Mar for the delay from 4/26 to 7/12 in submitting the LOMR application and avoid an additional disproportionate $ 20,000 excavation expense. 7) TIllRD PARTY FLOOD STIJDY CHECKlNG is not provided for in the Coppell flood plain ordinance. It is unnecessary and a disproportionate expense to have an applicant pay for outside engineers to check a property owner's flood study, which has been sealed by a certified hydrologist; therefore, Mira Mar will expect a S 2,000 reimbursement or credit against fees. 8) 3:1 SLOPES ARE ACCEPTABLE along the back line oflot 7. FHA allows 2:1 slopes on lots. The requirement of a 4; 1 slope is disproportionate and denies the optimum use of the back yard. This is private property and not subject to public grading criteria This requirement would cost an additional $ 5,000. It is not supported by ordinance or statute and is entirely disproportionate to any need created by the project. Alexander Court Exactions Page Three of Three 9) CONCRETE CAPS for two water line cuts on Bethel Road are disproportionate and unnecessary because Bethel is going to be concrete paved and those caps would be destroyed during the lime stabilization process. A compacted flowable fill and asphalt surface patch should suffice and save the $ 3,000 expense. 10) 0.147 ACRE DEDICATION for Bethel should receive a $ 21,700 fee credit. 11) llffi PARK FEE of $ 1,285 per lot bears no proportional relatienship to the total residents in Coppell versus the 29 residents in Alexander Court. An individualized determination of the park fee should take into account the 30% of the 18.5 acres, which is within the flood plain and not to be developed. 12) TIlE ROADWAY ASSESSMENT FEE of$ 1,000 per acre bears no proportional relationship to the total residents' burden versus the 29 residents of Alexander Ct. Regarding items 11 and 12. I believe a site specific individualized detennination of the rough proportionality requirement, would yield a much lower park fee than $ 1,285 per lot and a lower roadway assessment fee of some $ 1,000 per acre. The truth is, I cannot understand how either fee was arrived upon or how they relate to my property and, although requested, the City has provided no justification, other than some reference to an inflexible ordinance, applied generally. As per my 7/9 letter to Ken Griffin, Mira Mar is requesting an official response from the City regarding the foregoing issues and their cost to the applicant (property owner). My request is appropriate and in proper compliance with the provisions set forth within the Local Government Code, Section 212.904. If, after an Engineer, retained by the City, has made the necessary determination of rough proportionality and the financial burden of these requirements is ultimately found to be unnecessary, Mira Mar would respectfully request reimbursement for the actual cost to provide those City mandated items. Perhaps we could come to some agreement on the 12 issues, without involving the Council or having the City hire an Engineer to make the determinations cited within the law. These issues represent some $ 91,000 in direct project cost or offset credit; certainly not an inconsequential budget item. Please let me or Walter know if you think we can come to an acceptable accommodation and definitive conclusion on each of the itemized issues. Thank You for your assistance. .. cc: Kenneth Griffin, PE Walter Leonard, Esquire Tim Bennett, PE Yours Very Truly, John L. Hawkins, Pres. THE.CITY.OF -- corrELL /) August 10, 2007 Mr. John Hawkins 6003 Sunderland Drive Colleyville, Texas 76034 Dear Mr. Hawkins: I am writing in response to your letter dated August 7, 2007 regarding the Alexander Court development. I must say that I was somewhat surprised by several of the issues you raised. It is the opinion of the City staff that many of the items you now want to discuss with the City Council were agreed upon with the City's engineering staff and your engineer. In fact, your plans have been approved after they were resubmitted with the changes we requested and your engineer agreed to make. The City Council will be prepared to hold your hearing on August 28 as was agreed to yesterday in conversations between your attorney and the City Attorney's office. It was our understanding that the only issues to be appealed were: 1) The application of the City's floodplain ordinance prohibiting you from spoiling dirt in the floodplain; 2) Tree mitigation calculations; and 3) Issues regarding proportionality, specifically the requirement to construct the sidewalk on Denton Tap, the Roadway assessment Fee, and the Park Development Fee. It now appears that you wish to reconsider almost every aspect of the development that was discussed in our meeting on July 19. As such, I feel compelled to respond to each of the additional engineering issues you raised in your letter. Rolled Curbs Rolled curbs can indeed be accepted provided the adequate space is provided for parking and unimpeded vehicular movement. Our engineering staff continues to believe the rolled curb design requires 32' back-of-curb to back-of-curb given the specific design issues associated with the rolled curb applic.ation. Your comparison to fire lanes is somewhat flawed. While it is true that fire lanes are only 24' wide, this total width remains unobstructed since it is illegal to park in a fire lane. The streets in Alexander Court will be used for resident and visitor parking. Our experience suggests that the 28' back-of-curb to back-of-curb with the 24' gutter-to-gutter you desire using rolled curbs would result in vehicular parking extending further into the roadway than takes place with standard curbs due to the wider gutter appearance and feel associated with rolled curbs. We can accommodate rolled curbs only if the required space is provided. Extra Inlets The drainage requirements called for in the City's plan review of the subdivision are necessary. It is the responsibility of the City to ensure that development does not create future problems. The 255 PARKWA.Y 'It P.O.BOX 9478 * COPPELL TX 76019 * TEL 97.2/462 0022 * FAX 972/304 3673 Mr. John Hawkins August 10, 2007 Page Two City will also be the entity that unhappy homeowners contact for relief should the improvements you want us to allow prove to be inadequate in the future Raised Building Pads & Required Slopes The City takes a similar position regarding the necessity to raise the building pads on certain lots and to require certain grading slopes on certain lots. You were offered other solutions regarding how to handle slopes and elevation changes in the development, including the possibility of using retaining walls. It is my understanding that you chose not to employ other possible solutions, and you continue to disagree with the City's requirements regarding slopes even after your engineer agreed the changes could be made. For similar reasons stated above related to the drainage improvement requirements, the City has confidence in our professional engineering staff opinion that the requirements regarding building pads and grading slopes are necessary to avoid future problems. Concrete Caps for Bethel Road Water Line Cuts The requirement to install concrete caps on the water line cuts on Bethel Road is standard practice and can be found in our standard construction details. You have already been given permission to open cut the roadway to perform water utility improvements. We would nonnally require boring the roadway at a much greater expense to the developer. You are correct that Bethel Road will be improved in the future. However, the exact timing of that improvement is unknown. The concrete cap requirement better ensures the City that the roadway will not deteriorate prior to the improvements being made. It is not unusual for a developer's engineer and the City engineering staff to disagree. However, as stated above, the City's responsibility for maintaining improvements and managing citizen expectations long outlasts the responsibility of a developer. As such, it is the opinion of the City's professional engineer upon which the City relies to make these types of decisions. Our staff and City Attorney's office continue to believe the requirements placed on your development are prudent, necessary, and within the scope of the authority of the City. I know of no additional compromises that the staff is authorized to make or would agree to make at this time. However, we will meet with you again if you so desire. You will have the opportunity to discuss these issues with the City Council on August 28. Feel free to contact me should you wish to discuss the matter further. Sincerely, 1lJ~. Clay Phillips Deputy City Manager ~ t:'. : 1 = r c' ::~:.: ':-n:. ':' eel ;] 2' 11.4 '3S:jO~J ! D T i) 97 z<~~o ~.L3C, ~ ~_.. -1 -;:__ NICHOLS. JACKSON. DILLARD. HAGER & SMITH.. LL.P ~ David Dodd. i:I [mail ddo<:ld@nJdhs com .'\tll)m,~v,. &. Counselors at L\w I BOO Lincoln Plaz" 500 :-lorth Akard [)alla~. Texa~ 7'520 l (214) 96S-99Q<) Ell( (214) 965-0010 Emad :"JJDHS@)l.:lDHS.com p.::5t:'Rr L O'lLAAO JH (1~',O..2000; H LQUIS NICHOLS ,AWRENce w .lACK5.:'JN OF CO\.JNSEl August 14,2007 Clay Phillips .:)5 Parkway Blvd. PO. Box 9478 Coppel!. 'IX 75019 Reo' Procedures for a Proportionality Appeal to the City Council Pear Clay. As the elty attorneys for the City of Coppell we are writing you regarding the above referenced matter. The developer of Alexander Court has requested a proportionality review of certain fees in which we are charging. The authority to appeal proportionality rulings is cr~ated under 9212.904 of the Texas Local Government Code. llnder Local Government Code, as soon a professional engineer approves the amount of fees required for infrastructure Improvements that are roughly proportionate to the proposed development, the developer may appeal that decision to the city council. Upon appealing to the city council, the burden of proving the amount of fees charged is not proportionate to the development rests with the developer. Therefore, the developer should present his evidence first. Upon presentation of the evidence by the developer, the council members may ask questions of the developer. After the developer has presented evidence and has been questioned, the professional engineer for the city may offer evidenc..e. Then the professIonal engineer for the cIty may be asked questions b.' the council The council may then call any wi.tness they need to before closing the hearir1g The council shall make the applicable determination WIthin (30) thirty days tollowing the submis::;ion of any testimony or evidence. Therefore, the council may either Issue a decision the rught of the hearing or anytime ~1thin (30) thirty days after the final submission of evidence. A developer has the right to appeal the determination of the council to the County or DIstl'lct Court in Dallas COWlty within (30) thirty days of the tlnal detemlination of the COunCIl. n1ank you for YOW' attention in this matter. Please feel free to contact mrr office should YO\J have any questions. i C : 1-.--: ~'; -1 'c~ L ':-. c ('1 i (; :: !..; '3':";.(:,1' i C ~~ 7 ,,::. _::: C1 ~ ~] ~~;..., J. Davlo Oodd. ill F-m..lI ddodd@n)dhs.com Sincere 1)' , NICHOLS, J CKSON, DILLARD, HAGER ST. L.L.P. By: NICHOLS. JACKSON. DILLARD. HAGER & SMITH. L.L.P.