Country Estates-CS 920512 Coppell, Texas 75019
( ~~____~ The City With A Beautiful 'Future 214-462-0022
May 12, 1992
Mr. Mike Daniel, P.E.
Nathan D. Maier
Three Northpark
8800 N. Central Express, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75231
RE: Country Estates
Dear Mr. Daniel:
The City of Coppell has received and reviewed the reference plans and has
the following comments to offer:
1) When will the landscape and irrigation plans be submitted or
will there be any plans?
2) The drainage easement on Lot 1 Block B should be reflected on
the plat.
3) Based on the relocated inlets on Shorewood Drive and the
floodway easement, it will be quite difficult to gain access to
Lot 3 Block A. Please reevaluate this situation.
4) The drainage area map does not coincide with the site grading
plan. Please make sure that these two documents match.
5) The discharge of Line B into Grapevine Creek should be in the
direction of the flow of Grapevine Creek. It's quite possible
that a flaired drainage easement may be needed at the back of
Lot 10 Block A.
6) On the modified type C headwall, please show that the side
slopes will be graded at a 4 to 1 slope not a 2 to 1 slope.
Also, show whether the disturbed dirt will be sodded or
hydromulched.
7) Please comment as to why Line B is not being discharged at the
flowline of the creek. In your opinion, will the drop from the
pipe to the flowline of the creek cause greater erosion,
possibly beneath the headwall.
8) The portion of Line B from Station 2 + 40 to Station 3 + 90
should be lowered to get beneath the 8" sanitary sewer line.
Letter to Mr. Mike Daniel, P.E.
May 12, 1992
Page 2
9) The velocities in the channel between Lots 3 and 4 Block A
should be shown.
10) The proposed ground above Line A on the east side of Shorewood
Drive should be revised.
11) Public Works has requested that the storm drainage system be
extended to the eastern property line. I am concerned about
what effect Line C will have on the overall potential for
erosion. The headwall itself will create an obstacle to the
flow of water in the ditch section and over a period of years
will erode, especially on the west side of the headwall.
12) All standard details should be provided.
13) Notice the comments on Sheet 6 regarding the general notes and
the request for additional details associated with the
waterline.
14) A minimum finished floor of 1 foot above the low point should
be provided on Lot 3 Block A. It appears as though the
finished floor should be 505.9.
15) The construction of a house on Lot 3 will be so close to the
proposed floodway easement that a retaining wall will be
required in this area. Will this wall be constructed with this
development?
16) The finished floor on Lot 1 Block B should be 1 foot above the
low point elevation on Bethel School Road. It appears that the
finished floor elevation should be 504.0.
17) The flow arrows in drainage area 4 are shown incorrectly. It
should show the low point inlet.
18) The flow arrows in drainage area 8 are shown incorrectly.
19) Portions of drainage areas 6 and 7 are inconsistent with the
drainage area map. These two drawings should be consistent.
20) The finished floor for Lots 10 and 11 Block B should be 1 foot
above the low point elevation. It appears as though the
elevation should be 502.9.
21) The slope across the front of Lot 11 Block B is too flat.
Please reevaluate this area.
Letter to Mr. Mike Daniel, P.E.
May 12, 1992
Page 3
22) Per our previous conversations, there will be some type of bag
wall design for erosion protection along Grapevine Creek.
These plans should clearly show the limits of that bag wall
protection and the design of the bag wall should be sealed by
an engineer.
Once these comments have been addressed, the check set and revised set of
plans should be resubmitted to the City.
If you should have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact
me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E.
City Engineer
KMG/Dd
COUNTR1