Loading...
Oakbend Add/FP-CS 900713GINN, INC. July 13, 1990 Ms. Shohre ~neshmand, city of Co,ell P.O. Box ~78 Coppell,BX 75019 . Re: P.E. Oakbend Addition (Offsite Drainage) Dear Ms. Daneshmand: As requested we have reviewed the June 26, 1990 letter and attachments from Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers regarding' the offsite drainage as it relates to the adjacent cistercian property. The documentation enclosed with the June 26, 1990 letter clearly supports Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers' position that they have made reasonable attempts to work with the owners of the neighboring property. However, the adjacent property owner, through his attorney, has made some valid points, the most pertinent of which are the following: The primary drainage problem is the stormwater runoff crossing the alley along Cistercian's west property line. As stated in Cistercian's responses to Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, the current zoning of the Cistercian property is such that a future development would not require or be allowed use of the alley unless a zoning change to single-family residential is obtained for the property. Therefore, the alley is of little or no benefit to Cistercian. A "downstream" property owner does have the right to object to increased runoff entering his property due to development of his "upstream" neighbor's property. In this case, it appears that unless Centex, through Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, can arrive at an agreement with Cistercian to allow extension of storm sewer outfalls or temporary ditches on their land, then they must either sheet flow the runoff as proposed or design and construct an enclosed system which would discharge through modifications to the other storm sewer lines proposed in the engineering plans. It appears that no agreement may be reached with cistercian in this matter. 17103 Preston Road · Suite 100 · LB 118 · Dallas, Tcxas 75248 · Phone 214/248-4900 The proposed "sheet flow" of water onto the adjacent property can easily lead to future drainage problems on the adjacent property quite similar to some which are currently being corrected by the city of Coppell at taxpayer expense. We do not recommend allowing the stormwater runoff to "sheet flow" across the alley onto the adjacent property. The remaining alternatives appear to be: The City of Coppell proceed with condemnation for the required offsite drainage easements across the cistercian property, or; Require the Engineer to revise his grading and drainage plans to collect the increased stormwater runoff and, discharge it via the proposed storm sewers. Our most recent review comments and plan mark-ups indicated to the Engineer that the city of Coppell would prefer that the normal alley section be used along the east property line and that the runoff in the alley be collected in inlets and piped to the proposed storm sewer systems beneath the streets. We think that this approach should be studied by Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers prior to consideration of approval of their Final Plat. Please call me if you have questions. Sincerely, John C. Karlsruher, P.E. JCK/dsp cc: File 90441 ~1~'I'Y OF COPPELL 2.55 PARKW^Y BLVD. P. O. BOX 478 COPPELL, TEXAS 75019 (214) 462-0022 qE ARE SENDING YOU [~] Attached [ ] Under Separate Cover via ~/C~-L/~ the following items: [ ] Mark Up Plans [ ] Copy of Minutes Plans [ ] Prints / I/Copy of Letter [ } Specifications [ ] Change order [ ] COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION TltESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [ ] For Your Use [ ] As Requested [~For Review & Comment [ ] Returned for Corrections [ ] Resubmit Copie~ for Approval [ ] Return Corrected Prints REMARKS: ]Approved as Noted ] Approved as Submitted ] Note & Reply To: ] Note & Forward To: ] Submit Copies for Distribution ] Return Markup Plans with Corrections COPY TO: NDM June 26, 1990 Mr'. Steve Goram City of Coppell 255 Parkway Blvd. Coppell, Texas 75019 Oakbend Addition NOM No.: 89-9-106 NATHAN D. MAIER CONSUl. TING ENGINEEFIS, INC. Dear Steve: At lhe request of Mr. Derek Earle with Centex Real Estate Corporation, I am enclosing herewith copies of correspondence with the attorney representing the Gistercian Monastery concerning our a~tempt to secure a drainage easement on tholr properly which Is contiguous to Oakbond. AFter several attempts to secure their cooperation, they have asseded, in no uncedain terms, that any- thing we did in our development that resulted in an alteration to the current drainage pattern, i.e. sheet flow, would result in legal action. ,i / We conduclod an exhaustive effort to find a position of compromise and received no offers, save th~ suggestion that Centex purchase Ihoir propedy outright, at a price that is In considerable excess of any reasonable value. ,/' We believe that our proposed design is the only one which will not result in a lawsuit. We have there- lore proposed this drainage plan, even though its implementation is considerably more expensive,, than a more normal approach. /' / We trust that alter you review this correspondence, you will concur wilh our approach. you have any questions, please feel free Io conlact me. Sincerely, NATHAN D. MAIEF~ CONSULTING ENOINEEF:IS, INC.. × / Mike Daniel, P.E. CMD/rdp cc: John Karlsruher wi Encl. Derek Earle Three Norlhl'arh/~lS00 N. Central Expwy./Suite 300/Dallas, Texae 75231/(214) 739-4741 NDk,'I NATHAN D. MAIER CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. April 13, 1990 Mr. James J. Hadnet~, Jr. 2800 MBank Building 1704 Main Street Dallas, Texas 75201 Oakbend Addltlon - Goppell, Texas NDM No.: 89-9-106 Dear Jim: As you know, we represent Centex Real Estate Corpc~rallon as consulting engineers In their proposed development activities at the above referenced prelect. A portion of the Centex property, In Its present undeveloped condition, dralns onto properly owned by the Cistercian Monastery whom you represent. Tho malority of this drainage enters the Cistercian tract wllhln an existing ditch which crosses Ihe com- mon property line. Centex Is Intending to develop their property In'general conformance to the prellmlnary plat and plans prepared by our firm and approved by tho Ctty of Coppell, These preliminary plans contemplate col- lecting runoff from Ihe drainage basin that dralns to tho Cistercian Tract, and conveying It In a pipe to a discharge polnt In the existing ditch at tho common property line. We originally contacted you seeking a drainage easement so that we could construct a temporary hoadwall at the end of our pipe and line the ditch with rock rip-rap. The purpose of Ihose Improvaments would be to slow the water to a Iow veloctty before It entered the exlstlng earthen ditch. I refer to the headwall as temporary because when the Cistercian property Is p~atted for Its eventual development, the City of Coppell will requlre tho hoadwall to be removed and the plpe extended across the tract. In an attempt to galn your endorsement of our planned Improvements, we met with you In your office on April 5, 1990. In response to our request, you drafled o loller dated April 7, 1990, staling that your cllenl declined Io grant an easemonl Ihal would allow us lo Install tbeso Improvements. You staled that the reason for the denial of our request wag a belle! thai the development of our property as planned would damage the Cistercian Property by Increasing the runoff coming onto tho tract. Although we continue lo believe that we have a right lo develop our property ag contemplated, 8o long as existing dralnage pellerns are not significantly altered, we now offer two proposals for your consideration. Our first proposal Is that, as part et our development actlvltle~, we would extend the subject drainage plpe to the e×lsllng stock tank located on the dItch near the southwest corner of the Cistercian Tract. This would be of benefit to your client In two ways. In the short term, It'Would result In the near total relardatlon of the velocity of the water being discharged onto your client's property. The tank would function as a dolentlon basin, releasing the walor to contlnuo downstream over a longer pedod of time. Thoro Is also a slgnlflcanl long-term benefit, In ttm, t when this tract develops, a portion of the required Infrastructure will already be In place at no cost to lho developer. Our second propo.~'~l Is thai, once our final doslgn Is complete, Conlex would pay the esllmated Increase In cost for tho future extension of Ibis line caused by the Increase In stormwater proclpltated by Iho Improvement elr Oakbend. Three NorlhParl~/8800 N. (~¢,tral Exp~y./$u|le 300/Dallas. T~xa, 7,5231/(214) 739-4741 Mr. James J. Hadnott, Jr. April 13, 1990 Page 2 The magnit0de of the Increase In pipe size and the res'ultlng cost Increase would be subject to review by a qualified civil englneer o! your chooslng. In return for your acceptance of either of these proposals, we would, of course, expect that the ease- merits required from your client to complete tho work would be fodhcomlng. It Is the desire of my cllent that you and your client lind Centex to be a good neighbor and that you feel as though you were treated faldy. It Is our hope that the oiler of these proposals will eccompllsh this objective. Addlllonally, Centex Intends to bulld the alley planned along the common property line entirely on their properly and at their cost (estimated at $25,660). They Intend to allow access to the alley from the Clslerclan properly without seeking to recover any shared cost from the monastery or Its successor. Please address your response to these proposals to Mr. Steve Stolte at Centex Real Estate Corporation. If you have any questions that I can answer, please let me know. Sincerely, NATHAN D. MAIER CONSU,,k_TI~G ENGIN~EERS. INC. ', Mike Oanlol, P.E. CMD/rdp cc: Steve Stolte JAf~E~ ,J. HAI~THETT WILL FORD H^ItlT~ETT ,,_JAI~,I E~. t.J HA~TNETT, Ul"~, THE .I'-I. AI~TNETT LAW ~rlIlM AT'f'ORNEY.~ AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ~00 J~J~ANK J~UII_DIN6 JTO4 ~JAI~,~ STr~[[T ~)ALLAS, T~X~S 7,.5~01 (214) 74;~-4 6 5 5 T[LECOI~,~E n April 18, 1990 OF' COU~5[L Mike Daniel NDM Consulting Engineers, Inc. Three Northpark 8800 N. Central Expwy · Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75231 Re: Steve Stolte Centex Homes 1660 S. Stemmons Suite 150 Lewisville, TX 75067 Oakbend Addition Coppe].l, Texas Gentlemen: I have reviewed Mike's proposals, set forth in his ].ether of April 13, 1990, and discussed them with Fr. Denis. The proposals still ignore the primary issues - the creation of additional run-off and concentration of that run-off onto a small area of our client's property. The owners will continue to accept run-off water in the manner they have accepted it previously, but not in increased volume. Accordingly your proposals are unacceptable. Finally, your offer of the use of the alley, without participation in ihs cost, is an empty offer. 'Under current zoning, the developer of the Cistercian property will have %o build a sol. id · screen alongside your development, eliminating use of the alley. If the property becomes a the owners can use the alley; residential development, anyway. jH,Jr/sb CC: R. Rev. Denis Farkasfalvy Dan Beaird. T~-~E HAIITNETT L_/yx~ .~II~][ May 8~ 1990 OIr COIJ I~1 IF- L Steve Stol'te Centex Itomes luou ~. b:emmons Suite 150 I, ewisville, TX 75067 Oakbend Addition Coppell, Texas Dear Steve: Fr. Denis and I have discussed his meeting with you concerning your desire to pass run-off water onto %he Cistercian property. Fr. Denis tells me that you and he discussed a number of_- the options that had already been suggested to me. This letter will <;onfirm %.t~at Fr. Denis' pos ition remains 'the same a s out].ined in lay previous lethers. All of your proposals create unnecessary expense or adverse consequences for the Cistercian proper~.y. If you truly want to be a good neJ. ghbor, %hen we suggest that you pipe the run-off direc~.ly to Lite creek via your proper~y. Short of_' that, we cart see no solution Lo th(>. dilema other than the alteration of your development; Final.].y, you continue to threaten Fr. Denis with the loss of access to your alley if he does no% cooperate. While I am no expert and have not researched the issue, I would be very surprised to learn that, should the property be ~eve]_oped as re.~{den%ial, he could be 'denied access to his development through your alJ. ey. Of more signi, ficance is the currenh multi-family and com,nerc:[a] zoning which pre- eludes access %o his property from your alley, anyway. P,3.3 We have li%%1e doubt that your development will increase the value of the property so long as you are not allowed %o increase or alter the run-off onto the proper%y.- However, Fr. Denis h~as no obligation ~:o contribute to your development merely because it could ~.nc~;ea~e hhe value of bis property. JH,Jr/sb Ve~ruly~ ygurs,/~ cc: Dan Beaird R. Rev. Denis Farkasfalvy