Loading...
Northlake WE P1-6-CS 950302 March 2, 1995 Kelly Williams 755 Pelican Coppell, Texas 75019 RE: February 2, 1995 Letter Concerning Drainage/Trees Dear Ms./Mr. Williams: I appreciate your interest in some of the problems facing the City of Coppell today. I do apologize for the delay in getting a response to you, however, I was trying to explore all solutions prior to giving you a reply. The first problem you addressed in your letter was that yards had been elevated leaving a lower area towards the rear of the yards and that trees in the lower areas were being uprooted, thereby creating a hazard to the environment. Those yards were elevated to bring them out of what is a designated 100 year floodplain area that runs along the rear of the houses. City Ordinances do not allow any development within a 100 year floodplain area. The City also requires that the finish floor elevation of the homes be raised above that water surface elevation of the 100 year floodplain area. This requirement is most likely what causes the large elevation difference between the front and the rear of the yards. The land immediately outside the fenced in rear yards of these houses is a City park site. Myself and one of my inspectors have walked the site to review the area. During that review, we were informed by a resident that one large tree in particular was dead. It is very difficult to determine which trees are dead at this time because the larger trees have not yet bloomed. However, we were assured that this tree also did not bloom last year. Because this tree is located on a park site, I have contacted our Parks and Recreation Division to determine if they have a concern about the removal of that particular tree. The City also has a contractor working in this area on another project. I am in the process of requesting an estimate from that contractor on what it would cost to remove that tree. If your concern is more focused on the uprooting of the trees along the creek bank, that is a natural occurrence associated with the erosion of the creek banks. Typically, the City does not remove fallen trees unless they are creating a danger or a hazard to the flow of water. However, because this is a park site, this concern is also being conveyed to the Parks and Recreation Division. The second issue that you raised, the drainage pipe that discharges water onto the rear of the yard, is much more difficult to address. The area that the pipe discharges water into is a drainage easement and 100 year floodplain area for the conveyance of water. Most of the residents have chosen to fence that area into their yards. Because it is fenced in, I did not enter your yard to look at the pipe. However, even from the rear of the yard, I noticed standing water at the outfall of the pipe. The City's policy is that drainage pipes are typically taken through the useable part of the yard and discharged into the drainage easement. Your neighborhood has created a unique situation in which most of the drainage easement/100 year floodplain area has been fenced into the yards. The City's past position on cases where water discharges is that we do not regrade those areas, but only provide maintenance to the actual structure. Therefore, if the headwall or pipe were damaged then the City would fix it. You may be aware that the City has four pipes, similar to the one in your yard, discharging into this drainage easement. All four could use some type of maintenance or grading to allow for positive drainage of the water away from the pipes. To accomplish that task the City would: 1. Need to go against its previous position of not regrading those sites; 2. Move the fences to gain access to the areas; and 3. Remove large portions of the grassed areas to create a swale for the water to drain into and flow away from the headwall. I am currently exploring the possibility with my Street Superintendent as to whether or not this is a project that the City could accomplish with City forces. If it is a project that we could accomplish, then I will explore the issue of whether or not the City wishes to go on private property, within a drainage easement, and grade areas for positive flow. As previously stated, the City has a contractor working in this area on another project. I am also in the process of requesting an estimate from that contractor on what it would cost to regrade these areas to provide for positive drainage away from the headwalls. To ensure that we can provide positive flow, we will be surveying along the natural drainage swale, from the headwall to the creek. If the City chooses to change directions from its past procedures, the City would also have to be prepared to perform this same service in various other locations throughout the City where we have received similar requests over the years. I fully understand your concerns about this issue and am very sympathetic. I am also concerned that we have had a very mild winter so far and our mosquito problem this summer could be worse than in past years. Therefore, any pools or pockets of standing water will only cause a greater mosquito problem. Also, while walking the site, I noticed several other areas of standing water outside the fenced areas. To determine whether or not that water is ground water or City treated water, the City will obtain a water sample and have it tested for chlorine residuals. As of the writing of this letter I still do not have the final answer to the issues you raised. However, I hope that you can understand that the complexity of the issue involving a change in City procedures is much more complicated than what it appears on the surface. Again, I do appreciate your concern in City activities and also apologize for the delay in providing you a response to your letter. I have made a note to myself to follow up with you no later than March 24, 1995 to further advise you of any directions or steps the City may be taking to rectify the problems that you have presented. If you should have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at 304-3679 at your convenience. Sincerely, Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E. Asst. City Manager/City Engineer KG:kb wms3.2