Devonshire 1-CS 920219 MEMO
TO: Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
FROM: M. Shohre Daneshmand, P.E., Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Devonshire Estates
Retaining Wall Along Coppell Road
DATE: February 19, 1992
As per your request~ I have reviewed the above referenced project file as
it relates to construction of the retaining wall. I provide the following
comments based on my knowledge and findings:
- The sidewalk construction along Coppell Road at the Devonshire
site had been analyzed by Carter and Burgess, Inc. (the
Engineer). Basically, three (3) options had been looked at in
order to provide a pedestrian access to the elementary school.
(See attached letter dated 5/16/91)
- Option #3 was recommended by Staff which would have basically
eliminated the open ditch, only along Devonshire, and
replaced by a closed storm system. The engineer provided staff
with related documents, mainly estimated construction cost
associated with proposed storm systems. (See attachment dated
3/7/91.)
- After a couple of meetings among the engineer the developer
~? and affected City Staff members, it was determined that such
partial drainage improvement along a substandard street was
costly and may not be the best interim solution. It was the
developer's intent to use the funds he had escrowed for future
widening of the Coppell Road ($72,000± } toward such drainage
improvement. This option raised some general concerns.
- The engineer at that time, on behalf of his client, recommended
that some improvements be made to the existing channel in the
interim period, as shown on the attached cross-section.
Please note that the construction of said retaining wall was intended to
be an interim solution while the pedestrian access to the school and the
drainage issues were being addressed. Improvements to Coppell Road are
highly recommended, especially along the school and this subdivision. See
attached correspondence from Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea dated 10/9/91.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
DEIrMEM/bd
Ms. Shohre Daneshmand
Acting City En~neer
City of Coppcli
255 Parkway Blvd.
CoppeIJ, Texas 75019
Dear Shohre:
Per your request, we have reviewed the various options associated with the sidewalk construction at the
Devonshire project to serve the adjacent school site. We have arrived at three basic options and have
listed them along with advantages and disadvantages for each below:.
Devonshire Sidewalk Options:
1. Align sidewalk along Coppell Road with existing improvements in place - railroad tie waU,
landscaping, screen w'all.
Advantage: ~ expensive.
Disadvant~wes: Slopes on the Coppeil Road side of railroad tic wall are too steep to
wall would mcan putting the sidewalk agaln~ the proposed screen wall,
ellmlnatlno~ ex~fin~ tree~ and creating a I~abil~ty for the City next to the
ra~road fie pilot channel's steep wall This also prevents new trees from
being planted and gives the ~oppell Road frontage a poor, harsh
appem'ance. ~ of these improvements would have to be reconstructed
when Coppcll Road is .ezpanded.
2. Connect the school property to the cul-de-sacs of the subdivision by locating sidewalks in
between lot lines at the ends of the cul-de-sacs.
Advantat~s: Not costly. Keeps children off of major street (Coppell Road) that has
no curb and ~uttcr.
Disadvantages: Not very effective in d~rccting children to those two sidewalk locations.
Kids will probably usc the alleys for drculation wl~ch is not desirable.
May effect the markctal~ of the two lots at the end of each cul-clc-sac
in wtfich thc sidewalks are adjacent.
3. Remove the ra~oad fie p~lot channel and replace with pipe, allow~g grading to occm- over
the pipe to flatten the R.O.W. and greenway in front of thc Devonslfire project and put in
thc sidewulk.
~kdvant~: Eliminates the llab~'y o~ vertical drop into the pilot cl~anneL Improves
the appearance of the R.O.W. area. Eliminates the poss~ility of soil
erosion. Allows sidewalk to be located in a place where it will be used
7950 E~ DR./STE :250/DALLAS, TX 75247-4.951/(214) 638-O145
DALLAS · FORT WORTH · HOUSTON. TEXAS
FORT ~$YERS. FLORIDA
Ms. Shobre Dancshm~nd
Page 2
by the children and allows the sidewalk to be located away from Coppell
Road's edge. Allows landscaping to occur along frontage of Devonshire
project. Storm sewer pipe could be designed so that it could be
incorporated into the Coppell' Road expansion storm sewer improvements.
Dis~dvani~,s~s: Cost.
We feel that based on these three options it would be best for the City and the Developer if the storm
sewer pipe could be installed along Coppell Road now. It eliminates many problems and will prove to
cause the ieas~ impact when Coppell Road expands.
Because the Developer has paid the required perimeter road fee toward the eventual improvement of
Coppell Road, it is most agreeable if the cost of constructing the storm sewer improvements be paid for
with that money.
If you have any questions or if we can help in any way let ns know.
Sincerely,
CARTER & BURGESS, INC.
David Reitz, ~
DR;kn
90313901.L14
CCWSTRUCTi0N COG! E~TI~ATE
F
A N "~" : ~NSTALL STORM SEWER ALO~ EAST Si)E OF C?ELL R~A) TO HAN)LE EH~TING LOWS
OESCRiPTiO# UNiT QUANTITY PRICE
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
~EMO~E EX, 2?'
SPECIAL ~EA)iALL E~ !
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
P T ~
TOTAL EiTI"ATE~ CO~S'R(JC'iON
E C,u,' E W E- !
.: L A)4 ")' : P4STALL ~T.':.' .
.... '~,~ SEWER iN A))i'!r~ l~ ;LAX 'A' STC~I~ SEWER
:::: = ===== ==== ::==~= :=:=============:= === = =:===: ==== ====:=: = = = == ===== = ==
APFi~Xi)AT;
)EE~FTi{~ U~]T G~A~T'TY
o(':-;',r,.;.
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
"ONSTRdCTIOW CO!T ESTi)PT[
P ~ ~ JEC T ~A~E: )EVO~SHIRE ~C;RAGE: 0.00 )¥:
P H A S E: COPPELL ) A T E: O~-Jui-~i CHECKED:
r I' E NA~E: ~EVOdST~ )aTE ~ ~ E P ~: ?)-07-~1
~CdE~-ii
iN£SALL STORq SEWER ALgNG EAST Si)E OF CDPPELL ~OAB TQ HAWILE ULTIMATE FLgtS
~ESCRiPTION UNIT O~AN'!TY PRICE AH~NT
.................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................... ~
.................................................................................................................................
...... $ .... O,Ou $~,-, .....
............................................... ~ .................................................................................
CONNECT EX. 4), R.C.~. ?C PROP. R.C.P. EA I S2,000.D0 $2,000.00
.................................................................................................................................
gEqO~E i REPLACE HAL:FAX DR. Sy i)6 $25.00 $),400.00
.................................................................................................................................
REMOVE EX. 27' CULVERTS t HIILS LF 260 $3.00
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
UNCASSIFIE) ~ITCH EXC~VATIO# LS $~,00~.00
.................................................................................................................................
S ~i - i §TAL SCHEHE- II
ENBiNEERIN6 AN) CONTI#BENCIES 20) $24,466.50
TOTA' ESTi)ATEC C~NSTRUCTION COST $146~7~.00
· ' ~" "'
" .............. ~_ .~_'_"_ ............ z_ '? ~- ,-'" ~';~" ..... ~ '
' ':q .... -'~ i~': =1"/'~',~-'.,,~
.. -'!
2'~' ._.~- . fl- .!--]
' - .~"~ ':,.I
~.~"~ '~'""T'-F ;--~.,, ,,,,~ . 'ri-.;-: .... : ,' ..
: ....~[ ....... J_< ~.~,, 3 -- --
_ _;. . ~ ~:: .~ ~.~ ~-~. . ..... .,
':'?:':":' '~'-~:~'~ ~'-:~':';
?~ L.S,, '.", ~.- ,,.-,,,~', ,-,..'~ , ,x'.
: ;e~ .'.-re:' be secu.'el'.,' -.a:i~d ~:'?: 69 :, Scale: 1/8' =
: ': .':-h ::.,-- 12 :r. ct spi~es. Oct. 22, !991
. . f.-'t=n' 1o.~ :'eSn ~na:i De D.:F':,n~ ')r ~:~Aa' . Draw:. Bf Ralph A. Wille9 P.E.
- :'i' ' sba_' be a .Por::,J$ sand:clay ~"r, expans:'.,e 4405 B:s¢:ayne Df
· -~:.'! ~-ai: t-e *a~.Fe~, t~ e'..:'L:nat~ all '~'oiHs .~n"l Hal~o~ ,"it't, Texas 76117
~:='t ~:: '.ne ~al! al~g.;me~ . Pt~ne: :017~ 4X8-0454
' ' .-N: ;t ..~ :-.?:.rta' P ~hat t"e ".itch be '.'.~:nta~ne-d .~ffpe ELE',=AT ; .':~ %K~'T!"~!~ ';F THE ~ETA,'NfNG *lA.",[,
SHIMEK, JACOBS & FINKLEA ' - 9
CONSULTING ENGINEERS ...... _[ I
I
... -.. .... ~.:,!r~ ,
8333 Douglas Avenue, #820 Dallas, Texas 75225 (214) 361-7900
ROSS L. IACOBS. RE.
I.C. FINKLEA. RE. October 9, 1991
JAMES E. LAUGHLIN, PE.
RONALD ~ CONWAY. RE.
JOHN ~ BIRKHOFE RE.
MATT .ARMSTRONG, PE. ' J
,OER. C^RTER.,E. xc:
GARY C. HENDRICKS, PE.
Ms. Shohre Daneshmand, P.E.
Engineering Department
City of Coppeli
Post Office Box 478
Coppeli, Texas 75019-0478
Re: Devonshire Estates
Coppell Road Drainage and Sidewalk
Dear Ms. Danes~and:
We have reviewed the construction plans for the Devonshire Estates Drainage
Improvements and Sidewalk along Coppell Road prepared by Carter & Burgess,
Inc. Our review co~ents are as follows:
1. It is our understanding that the Drainage Improvements and Sidewalk plan
was proposed as an interim solution to providing pedestrian access from
Devonshire to the new Co~peli Elementary School i~ediately south of this
addition, w~_.o~fe~ no objections to this plan in general. However, we
do reco~end that this ~lan be accepted as an interim solution only and
consideration be given to improving Coppell Road to Ci{~ Standards both
along'the frontage of this addition and the"~chool property as soon as
possi~ie.
2. The typical section shows a railroad tie retaining wall 3.0 ft to 4'-6"
in height, n detailed engineering design along with specifications is
re~ired for any retaining wall in excess of 4 feet in height.
3. In our meeting at the project site on October 3, 1991, it was determined
that the sidewalk and screening wall would be shifted approximately 4
feet east along Lot 1, Block B to acco~odate the existing stom drainage
headwall at Halifax Drive. This plan should reflect that revision.
4. Shifting the screening wall and sidewalk approximately 4 feet east along
Lot 1, Block B re~ires a sidewalk easement for the City of Coppe!l and a
screening wall easement dedicated to the Homeowner's Association. These
easements may be submitted as separate instr~ents.
Ms. Shohre Daneshmand, P.E.
City of Coppell
October 9, 1991
Page No. 2
5. A landscape plan along the sidewalk was discussed during previous
meetings with the Developer. It was our understanding that landscaping
was to be required between the sidewalk and the drainage channel. These
plans do not address landscaping.
6. The prints indicate that these plans have been modified to reflect
construction records. This note is not appropriate at this time and
should be removed from the plans.
7. The Developer should submit either the Engineer's construction estimate
or the contract amount for the drainage channel and retaining wall work.
The 2% construction inspection fee should be paid in full prior to
beginning work on this project. We are enclosing a copy of a Draft
Letter for your use in requesting payment of the construction inspection
fee.
We have discussed most of these issues with the Developer's Engineer and it is
our understanding they are working to revise the plans. We recommend that the
drainage channel and retaining wall plans not be approved for construction
until the above listed com~nents are addressed. We are available to discuss
this review at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Gary C. Hendricks, P.E.
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Ben dela Cruz w/Enclosures