Lake Park-CS 900913 Kimley. Horn
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
ENGINEERS * PLANNERS * SURVEYORS
12660 Colt Road, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75251 214 386-7007 Facsimile 214 239-3820
September 13, 1990
Ms. Shohre Daneshmand
Engineer
City of Coppell
Post Office Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Re: Second Review of the Lake Park Addition Floodplain Reclamation Study by
Dan Dowdey and Associates
Dear Ms. Daneshmand.'
On August 17, 1990, we provided our first review of the subject study. That review
identified two major items that must have been addressed before we could recommend
approval of the report. On August 24, 1990, we received a second report that addressed our
initial concerns. We have now completed our review of the second report and we have
attended a meeting with you, Mr. Tom Wise, and Mr. Bill Anderson to discuss our further
concerns. The following items will be needed before we can recommend acceptance of the
second report:
1. Corps of Engineers 404 Permit: This item is a two step process. First, a wetlands
determination must be made by the Corps of Engineers. Second, a 404 Permit
must be obtained for any fill completed in this identified area. The first step has
been completed. (See attached letter). It is our understanding that no fill work
is to be done in the lake. If so, no 404 Permit is required for this area. However,
an area within the subdivision was identified as a wetland area. No work may be
completed in this area until a 404 Permit is received from the Corps.
2. Hydraulic Model Clarifications: The following additional information is required
before we can recommend acceptance of the hydraulic model presented in the
subject report.
a. Additional cross sections are needed at the upstream and downstream
limits of the project. One cross section is not sufficient to describe the
flood elevations.
Anaheim * Charlotte * Dallas · Forl Lauderdale * Fort Myers * Nashville * Orlando * Phoenix
Raleigh * San Diego * Stuart * Tampa * Veto Beach * Virginia Beach * West Palm Beach
Building client relationships since 1967
C 9-90~Pnrk.t'ana~9191.15
Ms. Shohre Daneshmand 2 September 13, 1990
b. The effective flow definition (x3 card) should be consistent with the limits
of the floodplain.
c. The floodway model should match the recently submitted correction sent
to FEMA.
It was generally agreed at today's meeting that the finished floor elevations would be above
the 100-year ultimate condition model, and that the pad elevations would be at least 2 feet
above the 100-year ultimate condition flood elevation.
Before today's meeting we also discussed the project with John Karlsruher of Ginn Inc., and
he indicated that they have no problems with the project at this point. We also discussed the
project with Phil Deaton and Steve Yetts of Carter and Burgess and they both agreed that the
project is compatible with the MacArthur Boulevard construction that is presently underway
at the site.
Finally, the Developer may start grading work on the site, with two provisions. First, the
requirements specified in this letter should be completed as soon as possible, and second, no
structures be started until all of the provisions addressed in this letter are met.
If we can provide further information please call me.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ronald W. Morrison, P.E.
Senior Hydrologist
pw
Attachment