Northlake Wood-CS 920601 1992
Mr. Tom Eiwood
156 Meadowcreek
Coppell, TX 75019
Re: Erosion/Grapevine Creek Tributary
Dear Mr. Elwood:
As a follow-up to our meeting in the field at 149 Meadowcreek on May 29,
1992, I am providing you the information that you requested. The
information consists of the following: 1) Written description, cost and
location of the erosion problem at 149 Meadowcreek (copied from our Storm
Water Management Study), 2) Phase ! and I! imp!ementation schedule from
our Storm Water Mana§ement Study, 3) Copy of a section of the preliminary
plans for the sewer trunk main.
The written description of the problem provides a future solution to the
erosion by installing a 6' X 5' box culvert and wye inlet at a total
estimated cost of $90,000, the phasing shows that this project is
currently a high priority in the Phase II implementation and the copy from
the plans shows that the aerial crossin§ will not be removed during
construction.
! hope you find this information helpful, if you should have any
additional questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E.
City En§ineer
KMG/bd
cc: Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager
EROSLTR
c. Erosion on Unnamed Tributary at Meadowcreek Road near Maywood Circle
The City of Coppell has also received several erosion complaints on an unnamed
tributary of Grapevine Creek downstream of Denton Tap Road. This tributary flows south from Hidden
Valley Estates crossing Meadowcreek Road near Maywood Circle. Moderate to severe erosion is occurring
next to the street behind the downstream headwall and for approximately 175 feet downstream of the culvert.
Minor erosion is also occurring around the upstream headwall. A three foot high timber drop structure exists
immediately upstream of the culvert entrance. This structure appears to currently be functioning as designed,
but should be monitored closely for any signs of failure. If the structure fails, maintenance should be
performed immediately to prevent blockage of the culvert crossing Meadowcreek Road.
The recommended design solution to the erosion problems around the upstream and
downstream culvert headwalls is grouted rock rip rap. A type ,yM inlet with a 21-inch RCP outfall beside the
existing culvert should also be installed in the roadside ditch on the downstream side of Meadowcreek Road
along with a new concrete headwall spanning the channel. The existing roadside ditch should be graded to
the proposed inlet. The estimated cost of this improvement is $7,000.
Severe erosion is also occurring along a 175 foot reach downstream of Meadowcreek
Road. This erosion is threatening to undermine the existing railroad tie retaining walis as well as an aerial
sanitary sewer crossing. A portion of the retaining wall has already been replaced once by the property owner.
In order to address this prot:.[cm and in addition to the above described improvements, a 175 foot long 6 x 5
foot box culvert should be installed downstream of Meadowcreck Road. The estimated cost of these additional
improvements is $83,000. The existing culvert and proposed MY* inlet would be connected to this box.
A second alternative which addresses thc downstream erosion problem involves
installing a ~U' shaped concrete lined channel in place of the concrete box described in the previous
alternative. Thc estimated cost of this alternative is $108,000.
The recommended solution to the erosion problems on the unnamed tributary at
Meadowcreek Road involves the installation of the proposed ~Y" inlet plus the 175 foot long 6 x 5 foot box
culvert at a total estimated cost of $90,000. This alternative is shown in red on Plate 3-4, Appendix F.
d. Flooding of the intersection of Bethel School and Bethel Roads
Grapevine Creek flows parallel to Bethel School Road (also called Harris Street) and
overtops it in the vicinity of its intersection with Bethel Road. The flooded area includes Bethel School Road
and the approach to the Bethel Road bridge structure crossing Grapevine Creek. However, the bridge is not
overtopped. The recommended design solution to this problem involves the raising of both Bethel School and
Bethel Roads in this area. This alternative will be described in greater detail in the discussion of Stream G1
which also contributes to the inundation of these roads (see Section B.2).
e. Erosion Downstream of IH-635
Immediately downstream of IH-635, Grapevine Creek is experiencing severe erosion
problems due to an inadequate transition from an existing channelized reach to the natural channel. This
channelization and flood plain reclamation on Grapevine Creek from Southwestern Drive through Freeport
Parkway was constructed in the early 1980's by Southwestern Town Lot Corporation. However, the official
flood plain maps maintained by the Federal Emergency Management Agency were never corr~ted to reflect
this channel. Later conditional approval was obtained from FEMA in August 1987 for the existing
VI-7
TABLE VI-5
SPECIFIC STREAM FLOODING SITE ALTERNATIVES
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Grapevine Creek 1. Belt Line Rd. Bridge & Upstream Channelization
a) Bridge $ 545,000
b) Channclization $ 15,000
2. Erosion Denton Tap to Moore Road
a) Preliminary Design $ 45,000
b) Retaining Walls $ 1,350,000
3. Erosion on Unnamed Tributary at Maywood Circle
a) at Meadowcreek Road $ 7,000
b) Downstream of Meadowcreek Road $ 83,000
4. Erosion near LBJ Freeway $ 400,000
Stream G1 1. Bethel School Road $ 555,000
2. Coppcll Road $ 488,000
3. Erosion Downstream of Coppell Rd (Mitchell St) $ 22,000
4. Loch Lane $ 31,000
5. Unnamed Tributary-NCH Tract z
6. Bethel Road $ 426,000
7. Freeport Parkway/Bethel Road Intersection $ 69,000
8. Undersized Storm Sewer U/S of Freeport Pkwy z
Stream G2 Grouted riprap erosion protection $ 26,000
Stream G3 Mcadowcreek Road Culvert and Drainage Improvements $ 29,000
Stream G4 Mcadowcreek Road Culvert and Drainage Improvements $ 53,000
Stream G5 1. Christi Lane - Erosion Control $ 4,000
2. Carter Drive - Channel Grading $ 3,000
Stream G6 1. Bethel School Road culvert and channel $ 170,000
2. Moore Road erosion protection $ 230,000
3. Marshy Areas - French Drain System No cost to City
4. Tributary - Over Lot Drainage-Retaining wall $ 15,000
Elm Fork 1. Flood Insurance/Flood Proofing No cost to City
2. Request Inclusion in C.O.E. Feasibility Phase Study No cost to City
Denton Creek 1. Flood Insurance/Flood Proofing No cost to City
2. Andrew Brown Park Spillway $ 35,000
Stream D1 1. Coppell Road culverts/channels $ 118,000
2. Corporate Park Boulevard z
Cottonwood Branch 1. Andrew Brown Park berm $ 35,000
2. State Road (Future Freeport Boulevard) $ 750,000
3. Winding Hollow Lane z
Stream C1 State Road culvert $ 60,000
TOTAL STREAM FLOODING SITES $ 5,564,000
Costs shown are total estimated costs. Possible city, developer or private participation not determined.
Development recommendation included in report. Cost not estimated.
VI-48
z =_ ,: zzx ~ - i:~=. .
~.-' :. ~ -~ :
- :-- : w ..... ~ -
;.~ , ;- .... ~ ;/~ ........ .~.? ../
~ '.-. . ~--
............. ', . ~ ,'- ~
~ .~ ~..~'.~.:~. ~ ~ .....
~ '" ' ~' ~i, '
'
~=~ ~ . ,'.. ~ _ ,, ..
~.~, ~--~.:'-' . . ~.. ~ ~ ·
~ ~ '. .~..-
· .: . .~ ~
'!
. __ ~ ~ ...."~
:-~ ~ '.
....i~/ ": "
.- ,.,..~
~ ~-.- .:
~' ' '~ .........~:--~" ' '-:'--~ ......... '--- ~ CITY-WIDE STORM ~ ~ ~.~
~ - , ...... . ~_[
~-' L_~ ~f .... ~:.'_ ,~'-~?'"~{t'.~;::~i WATER MANAGEMENT .......
~ i
b uncil of the ~C~ty of Coppell. Several of the flood control projects proposed in this report could
a~_o._t~ 'un,ed through jokqt--- efforts with individual property owners, developers or other entities. These
projee: are ~adicated in the phasing plan and each phase contains a general discussion of recommendations
for the nple~entation of that phase. In general the implementation plan is divided into six phases. Phases
1 and 2 ~orreJate approximately to the existing $800,000 approved by the citizens of Coppell for drainage
improveni~-~. Additional funding will be required to complete the subsequent phases of the proposed
improvements. Each flood control project is self-sustaining, in case further improvements are rejected in
future bond programs. Other possible funding sources are discussed in Section C. All cost estimates shown
are in 1990 dollars and include engineering, construction, surveying, testing and easement or right-of-way
documentation. Acquisition costs of real estate as easements or rights-of-way are not included.
B. Phasing of Improvements
1. Phase 1 Implementation
Phase 1 consists of projects which have already received tentative approval for funding by the
Coppell City Council. Also included in this phase are additional high priority projects which could be funded,
at least in part, out of the first sale of bonds. Policies, which can be adopted immediately, are also
recommended as part of the Phase I Implementation. These projects may be scheduled for the 1990-1991
f'meal year.
Previousl9 Approved Pro/ects:
Site D Kaye Street (North) $102,000t
Site C Brooks Lane - Stage I $162,000
Site J Sandy Knoll/Shadowcrest - Stage I $ 22,000
Site J Sandy Knoll/Woodhurst Pavement $ 19,000z
Site M Meadows Subdi~ion - Stage I $ 45,000
Subtotal $350,000
Additional Pro/ects:
Site M Meadows Subdivision - Stage II $ 20,000 ?
Engineering
Grapevine Creek Erosion Control - Survey, $ 45,000
-- Engineering & Geotechnical through
preliminary construction plans
Site B Bullock and Howell Subdivision $ 37,000~
._~---
Ditch Improvements
Site L Samuel Blvd./Meadowridge $ 69,0000
Condominium Flooding
Table VI-4 Passive Warning Systems $ 26,000
with Signs and Guardrails
Site O Woodridge Channel Interim $ 9,0004
Erosion Repairs
Section VI.D.50. Staff Gage & Rainfall Gages $ 4,000
TOTAL PtlASE I $ 560,000
'Dte developer of the adjoining subdivision has apparently committed approximately $40,000 to this project
Subgrade Failure Repair
3 Possible Coat Sharing with Coppell Independent School District
4 Poc~ible installation by city forces
VIII-2
2. Phase 2 Implementation
' Phase 2 consists of projects which may be funded, at least in part by the second sale of bonds
for the fiscal year 1991-1992.
Stream G6 Bethel School Road; Channel; $170,000
(NLWE) and Culverts
Stream G1 Loch Lane Channel Improvements $ 31,000
Grapevine Creek Erosion-Unnamed Grapevine Creek $ 7,000
Trib at Meadowcreek Dr.
Grapevine Creek Erosion-Unnamed Grapevine Creek $ 83,000
Trib Downstream of Meadowcreek Dr.
Denton Creek Andrew Brown Park Spillway $ 35,000~
Site D Kaye Street (South) $ lll'000z
Site D Cozby Circle $ 17,0002
Site L Moore Road - Austin Property $ 28,000:
and Town Creek Apartment Flooding
Site I Swan Drive $ 30,000
Section S.2 Fieldcrest Loop $ 61,250~3
TOTAL PHASE 2 $ 573,250
Parks and Recreation Department
2 Possible cost sharing with property owners
Estimated cost from nPreliminary Engineering Study for Drainage Problems on Fieldcrest
Loop' by Ginn, Inc. July 14, 1989.
Phases 1 and 2 represent over one million dollars in improvements to the drainage systems
within the City of CoppelL The majority of these projects may be funded with the previously approved
drainage improvement funds included in the 1990 bond package. However, sources of additional funding
should be pursued by city staff. Projects such as Fieldcrest Loop, Kaye Street (south) and Cozby Circle should
be funded at least in part by the property ovmers with city staff taking the lead in coordination and
construction supervision. For example, the Cozby Circle drainage improvements on the individual lots could
be funded either by the home owner or by the developer of the Cooper Road lots while the City funds the
design and construction of the connection into the existing storm sewer inlet on Anderson Avenue. Other
projects, such as, the Sandy Knoll/Woodhurst subgrade failure and the Andrew Brown Park Spillway should
be funded under street repair and Parks and Recreation funds, respectively.
VIII-4
· ' ' Fifth $~¢tion -'
/ " ' 157 MEADO:
/.~, ~ North Lake Woodlonds
I~ ~ ~ Lo~ 20 I~, .
..: .' , ~:~.-., .
~, · .,~ _ ~ '{¢ '.:,,, -~ / ~-~ /~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ _ .... :--
2o ' so "~,~$ m ~ N ~% ~." / / / ~t~ ........
~ , ~ ,~, ~,. ~ --~ ~-~~~---q ..............
/ . ~ ~ ~.'~% ~ ~ ~ ;' --I / ·
,' ~', "~ -k ~ ~-~ / ~ ......
.. ~ ~ ,. ~ . . ~ / , ---
., .. . · ~_.~., ' ~
, .., ,,.~ i~ .-~.~,.,:~ ~,~,.~ ,,/
, ..'~ '~'{'~ ~ '~ ~
,' ..' ' ~t~_ ~ ~ ~ /~~~ ~ ~_ ~-.
' ~ , ~"~'~ ~ 1, ~ / ' /
/ '. ',z ~k ~ ~ ~ ~/
~ / -/ . ~ ,v,.~ I i/
Z ~ /.., . ', ',.' ,,/~ ~'./; ~ ', ~. '% '-..
~ ~ / ,' ' ' , ',~V',/ ',
- ~," /, ,~,'d ',
.~ ~ / .., _,! _~_ I ,' 1~
.. " ~ ' ~ ~ I ~I I ~ ' i J
' / ~ / / / , r i
· · ' ~ i ~ ~
','/~/ /", .'
.. ,j
~ /. ~,,/ , . .
,,,,, ,
, ~/~ , / ,
/ I ,' · i' j /