Loading...
Enclaves-CS 960216 Coppell, Texas 75019  ~ ;~Oe. BCoixtY478With A Beautiful Future 214-462-0022  Coppell, Texas 75019 (~ February 16, 1996 David R. Blom WPC - Parkway Development Corporation 9330 LBJ Freeway, Suite 745, LB 68 Dallas, Texas 75243 RE: Enclaves on the Parkway Dear Mr. Blom: I have received and reviewed the information you provided on the east slope channel verification. I am somewhat amazed that after all the time put in on this project, including meetings, telephone calls, etc. that we are still faced with a situation two months after our last meeting where we have slopes steeper than 3:1. I am confused as to what value the overall slope has in this analysis. In actuality, a mower will be on slopes steeper than 3:1 for approximately twelve of the fourteen shots provided. I am unsure of the best way to phrase this or to convey it to you, but the City has tried to be very clear in the past that the only acceptable slope on the east side slope is a minimum 3:1, not a composite 3:1. Any area of this channel side slope should meet a 3:1 slope. It is obvious from the information provided that the 3:1 is an obtainable slope. So again, I am somewhat confused as to why we are playing games and still having break ridges at 7 and 24 foot intervals with a flat slope on the top side and a steep slope on the bottom side. As my December 14, 1995 letter stated, if this was not resolved by February 15, 1996 then I would have no option but to refuse any additional requests for building permits. We have tried to work with you on this particular issue and we have worked hard and I know you have worked hard to try to resolve this but we are still in a situation where we have slopes that are unacceptable. Even knowing that portions of the slopes were steeper than 3:1, we sent our Leisure Services Department out to inspect the area because they would be the ultimate party responsible for mowing and maintaining the area. They have stated that it would not be feasible to expect a mower to mow and maintain this area with a body of water at the foot of the steeper slopes. The City has no option other than to reject the additional grading as done on the side slopes and to again request that the slopes be cut and graded to a 3:1 slope. Our intent is not to delay the construction of the Enclaves Subdivision. As I am well aware, approximately 50% of the lots have permits on them at this time. However, the City cannot allow the subdivision to be built out while we are still trying to address the relatively simple matter of grading a side slope to a 3:1. Because our intent is to continue to work with you, I am extending the deadline to have this issue resolved until March 15, 1996. The extension of the deadline is totally based on the fact that an effort has been made. However, that effort has fallen short of the criteria laid out by the City. Therefore, the City will allow the continued construction in the Enclaves Subdivision until March 15, 1996. Prior to that time, the City requests information submitted on fifty foot intervals as previously submitted that show, not composite slopes, but actual slopes no steeper than 3:1. If you should have any questions or need any additional information please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E. Assistant City Manager/City Engineer NV1 8'9(:3 ,'[,g I.:8'g l.:f;'f; 8'~9 ,Z I.:8'cj "Td 0"V9 ,0 f; I, +9 NV1 z'gg I.:Z';g I.:f;'f; f;9 ,Z I.:Z "l'd 0'1z9 ,0 ~9+g /WI 9'9§ ,1;,~ I,:8'~ I.:~'S Z'~;9 ,Z '-I'd O"lz9 ,0 /WI Z'9§ ,t~ I.:6';~ I.:f;'S 9'~9 ,Z. 'Tcl 0'lz9 ,0 s0+g I.:6';g I.:;~'f; ~'~;9 I.:¢'¢ "Td 0"lz9 ,0 f;9+lz I.:6';g i.:g'g 'lz'g9 ,Z '"l'cl 0'~9 ,0 S I.+~ NV.L 9'9cj I.:9';~ L:Z'f~ 9'Z9 ,Z 'Td 0'1~9 ,0 TIV~I3A0 3d0'1S :ldO'lS NOIIVA3'13 J. HE)I~I NOI.LVJ. S J lBS-I-lO 'I:iNNVHO :ldO'lS/SV~_:I AVM,NI~IVd EIH/NO S:IAV-ION3] 96-9-~: NOI/VOI:II~:IA NV_L §'9S ~:8'~; ~:;~'f; §'~9 ,Z :Z'I~ '-I'cl 0'1~9 ,0~ NV1 1~'9§ ,~ ~:8'~ ~:~;'f; §'~:9 ,Z '-I 0'1~9 ,0 ~:Z';~ ~:~;'f; Z'~;9 ,Z L:I~'§ '-I'cl 0'~9 ,0 ANJ. 8'9S ~:0'f; L:S'S ¢';~9 ,Z '-I'd 0'1z9 ,0 ~9+ NV_L 6'99 ~:l~'f; S';~9 ,Z ~:Z'I~ '-i'cl 0'~9 ,0 NV& Z'9§ ~:8'~ ~:f;'f; 8'~9 ,Z ~:8'S '-I'd 1~9 ,0 f;9+0 (/WI) Ile/XA jo do_l. 9'9§ ~:~;'f; L'~9 ,Z ~:Z'f~ u~oo ':_I'N jo q~,nos ,f~ ~ eu!-I f~p~do~d 0'1~9 ,0 $ ~+0 ~padoJd jo ~auJoo ),seeqpoN 00+0