Oakbend Addn-CS 901204~OPPEIJ~ PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
December 4, 1990
Steve Goram, Director of Public Works
M. Shohre Daneshmand, Acting City Engineer ~
Oakbend Addition/Construction Plan~ - Open Channel
(Tickler 12/4/90)
As a result of our December 3, 1990 meeting with Derek Earle of Fox
& Jacobs, Mike Daniel of Nathan D. Maier, Gabe Farve of Ginn, Inc.
and myself, I would like to provide my following comments.
Staff is still concerned about the validity of the Oakbend
final plat, since, to our knowledge, the P & Z and the City
Council had never seen the revised final plat, as it is being
reviewed by Public Works Staff. We need a clarification on
this.
Staff has always expressed concerns regarding the subject open
channel, thru Lot 52, Block A, for the past several months.
Since we began the final construction plan review of this
project, the developer chose to ignore our concerns all along,
while City Staff was trying to work with the developer. Staff
allowed him to start utility construction in phases as they
met Coppell's standards. Our concerns regarding the open
channel was never addressed properly, and therefore, we have
spent tremendous amount of time and effort on this project.
Staff still believes that a closed drainage system is the best
alternative and must be proposed outside of the Lot 52, Block
A.
Gabe Farve representing Ginn, Inc. indicated during the
meeting that he does not see any problem with the proposed
open channel since the subdivision ordinance allows open
channel in residential subdivisions.
Please note that typically open channels are laid along the
back yards of residential lots and not in front of such lots.
Mr. Earle suggested a resolution in that he will not build a
house on Lot 52, Block A, but he also requested that the use
of that lot remain flexible for Fox & Jacobs. I strongly
recommend that upon receipt of revised final plat and its
Memo to Steve Goram
December 5, 1990
Page 2
wording, etc., we get legal council and planning department's
review and comments on it prior to approval of this request.
More importantly, the Public Works Staff's review and comments
must be addressed.
Staff is concerned about operation (erosion), and maintenance
of such open channel. Although the developer's intent is to
get Home owner's Association to maintain the channel, it is my
understanding that the City may eventually be expected to
handle the maintenance, and may receive related complaints
from residents. You suggested that the proposed channel be
within a drainage way, instead of a drainage easement, and I
suggest that we receive comments from legal council. Mr.
Earle's proposed plan, during the December 3, 1990 meeting, is
generally better than the old plan, and as long as all of our
concerns are addressed, we will consider this proposal.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Next Check Date:
January 10, 1991
OAKBEN4.MSD