Loading...
Creekview Add PD-CS 880910~-c4~ ~ ] T SIGNE[ DATE SIGNED RECIPIENT: REPLY ON PINK COPY -- RETAIN WHITE ~PPy TOPS~FORM 3801 RECIPIENT: REPLY ON PINK COPY -- RETAIN WHITE COPY GINN. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS September 7, 1988 Mr. Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager city of Coppell P.O. Box 478 Coppell, TX 75019 Re: W.B. Johnson - August 20, 1988 Letter Sincerely, H. Wayne Ginn, P.E. Dear Mr. Ratliff: We have reviewed Mr. Johnson's letter of August 20 regarding his erosion problem. It is difficult to prepare a response to a letter that is based partially on fact and partially on emotionalism. For the record, we do not agree with all his statements. Mr. Johnson is correct in stating that the sewer line has caused some erosion, and that the developer should be responsible for restoring the creek bank to its original condition. There are differences of opinion between the developer and property owner as to what level of expenditures are required to provide a proper solution to the problem. Mr. Johnson wanted a ,,gabion-rock retaining wall" which will cost many thousands of dollars. The developer has agreed to restore the creek bank to its original condition. We recommend that a meeting be held between the property owners, the developer, and the city representatives to seek a mutually satisfactory settlement to the problem. / cc: Russell Doyle 17103 Preston Road · Suite 100 · LB 118 · Dallas, Texas 75248 · Phone 214/248-4900 P 0 Box 478 Coppe . Texas 75019 214-462-0022 August 26, 1988 Mr. W. B. Johnson, P.E. 409 Meadowcreek Road Coppell, TX 75019 Dear Mr. Johnson: We are in receipt of your letter of August 20th related to the Creekview Estates sewer line. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to Mr. Ginn and Mr. Doyle and will ask them to provide me with their opinions and proposed solution to any problems which need to be addressed. You are certainly correct in stating that the city of Coppell should not be required to expend their funds to correct this problem and we will look to the developer to make any corrections which are his responsibility. We appreciate you taking time to write and provide us with this information and will forward a copy of your letter to the Mayor and City Council. Please keep us informed of any other observations you may have upon this situation, and we will attempt to keep you informed as well. sincerely, Alan D. Ratliff City Manager ADR/dgc xc: Mayor and City Council Russell Doyle, city Engineer Wayne Ginn, Consulting Engineer JOHNSON.LTR August 20, 1988 City of Coppell City Hall Coppell, Tx. 75019 Attn: Mr. Alan Ratliff Subject: Utility Easement for Creekview DeveloPment Reference: Ratliff-Johnson Telecon August, 1988 Dear Mr. Ratliff, The reference telecon was initiated as the result of property damage incurrad ~hen the Creekview developer mistakenly tres- passed on my property to construct a proposed sewer line to serve Creekview Estates and related property to the south of my home and to the south of Grapevine Creek. I began working with the city engineer, Wayne Ginn and the developer's repres- entatives to resolve the problem. As of this writing, I have dedicated the easement and the sewer line has been installed. I have also arrived at a negiotated settlement with the dev- eloper for the loss/damage to trees and vegetation along and ajacent to the easement in the area exceeding fifteen feet. I have agreed to assume responsibility for the replanting of trees in this area. However, the restoration of the creekbank is the developer's responsibility, subject to city inspec~ti~n and approval. Mr. Ginn and I. met and consulted by telephone on several occa- sions during the past four months. We agree that locating the sewer line crossing in the bend of the creek creates a poten- tially severe erosion problem in the construction area at the creekbank and around the concrete pilings supporting the sewer line. We do not agree on the degree and extent of the erosion that will be a direct result of the sewer line installation. However, we did agree to "wait and watch". I have taken photo- graphs and measurements per Mr. dinn's suggestion, and now have. positive evidence indicating that the restoration of th~--e~se- ment area and the creekbank is "grossly"inadequate. Mr. Ginn, in his capacity of City~.Engineer and Floodplain Coordinator, has repeatedly assU~d?~i~ that permanent protec- tion for both the easement area and the creekbank would be re- quired of the developer subject to city inspection and approval. The las~-heavy rainstorm in late July~y destroyed the "Horizontal Lift" which was intended to protect the bank at the easement. Also, the sewer support columns generate a severe vortex in the current which has undercut the bank immediately downstream of the sewer line. The fill in the sewer line trench has settled and two small gullies are being formed flowing into the creek. This erosion, while only moderate, was caused by -2- water approximately six to seven feet deep (1/3 bank full). I am confident that a large rain which would run bank high (18-20 ft.) would have washed out the sewer line and easement for a distance ten to fifteen feet inland, plus caused exten- sive damage in the area immediately downstream of the sewer line. The above noted facts dramatically demonstrate that the devel- oper.has NOT adequately fulfilled his responsibility, which is to protect the creekbank from any future damage/erosion caused by the installation of the sewer line. Nor has the City Engineer provided the contractor with sufficient direction to insure that PERMANENT PROTECTION of the sewer line/easement and the adjacent creekbank be installed. This easement area must be permanently protected NOW- at the developer's expense- not THREE years hence when the City would have to pay for repairs and damage resulting from inadequate construction san- ctioned by city employees. The o~ject of this correspondence is to officially notify the ~ i~n City of Coppell that I feel that the City may be ne l_g~ent the handling of this situation and to appraise you of the cir- cumstances. As conditions now exist (no permanent protection to the ease- ment area and creekbank), I would have only one recourse - o Wait until the next big rain- assess the damage to my property (caused by the vortex etc.) THEN o Initiate whatever legal recourse is available to recover damages and require the city to install permanent protection to the creekbank. I do not wish to be placed in this position, nor do I want the city to subsidize the developer by approving fast, cheap, tem- porary measures in lieu of permaaent, quality construction. Mr. Russell Doyle has been appraised of the situation and is in the process of acquainting himself with the details. How- ever, the city construction codes to not explicitely cover this situation and therefore due to the possible political ram- ifications (cost of permanent fix), your attention may be warrented. I will be happy to assist in any-manner you may consider desirable. Sincerely, /~. I~ .,~:I~ '- "' '- W.B..Johnson, P.E.