Cpl HS 1P/PP-CS 870601GINN, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Steve Goram
Gabe Favre
June 1, 1987
Coppell High School
Re: April 21, 1987 Memo (Ratliff to T. Bowman)
Pursuant to a meeting held this date (with Taryon Bowman,
Shohre Daneshmand, Steve Goram and Gabe Favre in attendance) and,
in accordance with your direction, we reviewed the April 21, 1987
memo from Mr. Ratliff to Taryon Bowman and the following sets
forth our comments.
1. According to Tom Rutledge of Teague, Nall and Perkins, Inc.,
the traffic study was reviewed by staff prior to the preliminary
platting process. Since we do not have a copy of the traffic
study, we cannot make a determination as to whether it will
satisfy the signal study requirements. Usually, a traffic signal
warrant study is required. Rutledge indicated he would send us
an additional copy for review.
Our traffic engineer made a warrant study for Denton
Tap/Parkway Blvd. intersection, and at this time a signal is not
warranted. If the school is constructed a study should again be
made to determine at that time ~hether a signal is required.
Preliminary indications from our traffic engineer would suggest
that because of the school's construction, a traffic signal would
be warranted.
2. The assurance that Univest will pay their pro-rata share to
build the road will have to be determined by CISD and Univest
contracts. Before the City institutes any pro-rata procedures,
the agreement would have to be reached between CISD and Univest.
Prior correspondence indicates that a commitment would be
required from Univest, that Parkway Blvd. would be constructed
prior to opening of the school and that Univest would commit to
platting the right-of-way for Parkway Blvd. and the access road
to the school. Until an agreement is reached between the two
parties involved, the city could not be involved.
3. In our opinion the CISD should be required to pay all fees
which their construction will impact, such as: preliminary and
final plat fees; water and sewer availability fee; water tap fee;
sewer connection fee; construction permit fee; street lights and
street signs costs, if applicable; and inspection fees in
addition to any assessments which are chargeable. They should
not be required to pay park fees. Of course, if the City Council
so chooses, they may waive the payment of any or all fees,
assessments, charges, etc., or elect to charge a nominal fee.
Based upon 49.9 acre tract of land, 1 lot, and 195,000 S.F.
of building and our current ordinance the following fees would be
assessable:
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
Water/Sewer Availability
Water Tap
Sewer Connection
Construction Permit
Other applicable fees
$ 104
1,846
11,700
200
100
to be determined
to be determined
By not enforcing payment of these fees, the City would have
to absorb the costs stated above.
The City Attorney may have some input with regard to waiver
of fees. You may want to check with him.
Gabe Favre
/jc
cc:
Alan Ratliff
Taryon Bowman
Wayne Ginn
sg601241