Loading...
Eng. memo re floodplain MEMO TO: Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager FROM: Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., Ci~ Engineer SUB.CT: Johnny Thompson Proper~ DATE: November 16, 1992 On November 12, 1992, I spoke with Mr. Thompson concerning the development of his 25 acre tract of land. I explained to Mr. Thompson that, based on my review of the previous correspondence and FEMA requirements, he did not have a permit from the City to fill his property and that he would need to go through the Floodplain Development Permit process to obtain that permit. I explained to him that it appeared that in 1983 he was proceeding on the proper course of action to obtain a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA). I explained the difference between Letters of Map Amendments (LOMA's) and Letters of Map Revisions (LOMR's). Mr. Thompson seemed to understand that his was a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) and that it was superseded when the new maps were published. Mr. Thompson inquired about the time frame of obtaining approval through the Floodplain Development Permit process. I explained to Mr. Thompson that it could be three to six months, after the study is approved by the City, before he receives a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A LOMR would be required this time because he would actually be reclaiming property from the floodplain for development purposes. I explained to Mr. Thompson that if in fact he had filled his property in 1983 to an elevation less than 445, we would still be having this conversation because the floodplain had changed by 2 feet. Mr. Thompson stated he was well aware of the 2 foot change in elevation and it was his opinion that it was due to the reclamation by Riverchase. I explained to Mr. Thompson that Riverchase probably contributed to the increase somewhat, but also ten years of development in the watershed basin and more advanced technology concerning the programs and additional cross-sections also contributed to different numbers being published on the floodplain maps. Again, Mr. Thompson seemed to understand this aspect of the floodplain studies. Mr. Thompson raised a question as to why he was denied a permit last year to fill his property, when the October 16, 1991 maps showed his property not to be in a floodplain. Mr. Thompson is correct that those maps did not show his property to be in a floodplain. However, at the time of his request, we did have additional information from our Storm Water Management Study to indicate that the floodplain maps were in error and that his property was in a floodplain. The use of the best available information is an approved process through FEMA for floodplain determinations. I commented to Mr. Thompson that the same process was the one he had used in 1983 to show that his property was not in a floodplain. Memo to Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager November 16, 1992 Page 2 We also talked about his property in regards to the Eagle Point development to the south. Mr. Thompson commented that his property would have nowhere to drain. He was correct in that statement. I told him we have commented to the developer of Eagle Point that they would need. to make provisions for the drainage. Mr. Thompson stated that he has talked with Nathan D. Maier, the engineer for the project to the south, and that he stated that they will pick up half of his runoff. Mr. Thompson stated that he will take the other half of his drainage to Sandy Lake Road. At this point, I stated to Mr. Thompson that Dallas County had recently let a contract for the design of Sandy Lake Road and that if it was his desire to take some of his property to Sandy Lake Road for drainage purposes, he should contact the engineer at this time. I told Mr. Thompson the consulting firm was Svererup Corporation and the engineer in charge of the project was Phillip Westin, P.E. I offered the phone number to Mr. Thompson, but he said he would get it at a later date. ~I Several times during the course of the conversation, Mr. Thompson stated that it was not his wish to litigate with the City because that could tie the property up, quite possibly, for years before a resolution was made concerning the filling of the property. He has alluded to the fact that he has a potential purchaser, but the time table is in the neighborhood of nine months. He seemed willing to go through the floodplain study process, if that time table were in the three to six month range. Mr. Thompson expressed concern that the City would hamper his floodplain development process and not allow him to ever develop his property. I stated to Mr. Thompsonl that it was my desire as the City Engineer to work with Mr. Thompson, as I would anyone else in obtaining proper approvals for his property. I informed Mr. Thompson that if he submitted a floodstudy that was approved and met our requirements, the floodstudy would be processed to FEMA for approval, as would any other floodstudy within the City limits of Coppell. I also stated to Mr. Thompson that there is currently a coalition of nine cities being formed that would monitor all development along the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. This is in conjunction with the Trinity River Corridor with North Central Texas Council of Governments. If the coalition is active and in effect at the time of his request for development, there could be additional restrictions and requirements placed on his property. One of those could be valley storage. Mr. Thompson questioned whether or not valley storage was currently a requirement of the City of Coppell. I informed Mr. Thompson that it was a recommendation of the City of Coppell, but at this point in time, it was not a part of our Floodplain Ordinance. Mr. Thompson was ve~ cordial during the course of the conversation. He left me with the impression that he would be pursing the floodplain development process, if his parmers in the /property were willing. I would be happy to discuss this with you at your convenience, if you so choose. I will be following up with similar information to Mr. Thompson as a confirmation of our phone call.