Lakewood A-CS 921009 ~; ..... ~ /~--~'" ~' ~' ~'='-"=.~:--~11-'. ~:---'.t1:'-::-~:~1 Coppell, Texas 75019
,~/~_~ The City With A Beautiful Future 214-462-0022
October 9, 1992
Mr. Kevin Kendrick, P.E.
Unzicker, Schnurbusch Associates
8700 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 400
Dallas, TX 75247
Re: Lakewood Estates
Dear Mr. Kendrick:
The City of Coppeil has received and reviewed the revised plans for the Lakewood Estates
subdivision. Prior to approval of these plans, the following items need to be completed. It is
my understanding that the developer is phasing this project. Therefore, when the plans are
resubmitted, a set of plans should be submitted that only includes the section of the plans that
pertains to Phase I. The remaining pages of the plans should be submitted as a Phase II set of
plans and reviewed accordingly.
1) Your letter indicates that the top of manhole elevations were provided for all
manholes on Page 5. However, I failed to find the elevations. Please reevaluate.
2) The cross-section detail for the street section on Sheet 7 is still incorrect. Your
capacities for your street and parkway right-of-way are incorrect. Your street
section should show an 11 foot parkway from the back of the curb and 28 foot
street section back of curb to back of curb.
3) There was a comment about installing an inlet in the alley in Block E before it
approaches Tealwood Drive. The reasoning is that a large amount of water will
be entering the street at one point and could potentially cause problems.
4) When the Phase I plans are resubmitted, the sanitary sewer plans should also be
resubmitted. A note should be placed on the plans indicating that the "Location
and limits of replacement for the 27" sanitary sewer line have not yet been
approved by the City or the Municipal Utility District."
5) Your letter indicates that all starting hydraulic grades are based on the 100-year
water surface, as developed by the Albert Halff Study. However, on Sheet 10
you're inconsistent with your letter, and the other outfalls in the plans, by dropping
back to the 50-year water surface. Please explain your reasoning for this change
in approach to the starting hydraulic grade line.
Letter to Mr. Kevin Kendrick, P.E.
October 9, 1992
Page 2
6) Additional information should be provided on the pilot channel design on Sheet
11 such as: the cross-section of the pilot channel, capacity, evaluation of the
height of the outside walls where the pilot channel has 90 degree turns, etc.
7) The option to seed the top of the bank should be eliminated on Sheet 12. The top
of the bank should be sodded.
8) On Sheet 25, you show the end of Line D-3 in relationship to the proposed pad
sites on Lots 20 and 21. We are currently experiencing a similar situation where
the property owners are demanding the City extend the sewer line to eliminate
some extensive erosion taking place at the ouffall of the pipe. Please reevaluate
this situation and any others on the plans that may exist and extend the system a
sufficient distance away from the pad site.
9) I had requested that positive overflows be provided at all low points. However,
your note on Sheet 26 talks about the positive overflow being cut by the
excavation contractor and then being filled by the excavation contractor after
paving. That note needs to be removed. The reasoning for the positive overflows
at low point inlets is to provide an additional escape for water in the event the
capacity of this system is exceeded by a higher frequency storm or in the event
that the system itself ceases to function.
Once these comments have been addressed, a revised set of plans that addresses Phase I only
should be submitted for review and approval. The plans for Phase II should be submitted for
review and approval when you are ready for development.
If you should have any questions or comments concerning this, please feel free to contact me at
your convenience.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E.
City Engineer
KMG/bd
l akewoo I