Parkwood-AG 860422 accept responsibilities for maintenance and reDiacement cf
a drainace ditch located adjacent tc Parkwood ii.
Iii. SU."L",kRY DESCP. IPTION OF THE IT-~-~:
:.-'-= ....... i%? STA-~F_ REPRESENTAT~--v-~ ( S ) TO AT~ CO~CiL ~T. iNG:
' ':"" :.' ....... "" 'Ed' ~6~'6~' ~:' ~'~ ~{, ~
'-~- .~ ~ ...... ~ . .. · .... , . · . ~r.~ - . .:
'- ~ . S~PORT ~~: S~F~D ~ D~ [ ]
Vii. DA~ 'S~F~ TO CI~' ATTO~"S OFFICE FOR PP~~TION OF
~ DO~~, O~I~CE, ~SOLUTION, FTC:
..... : .... VIii. FI~C~ ~I~: SO, CE OF ~iNG:
;.Lt~.;.-~--. -.' . E...'.-.-. .. '-
-~' '"~-"' -~..-" NON-B~GE~ I~ 'I ] OP~ING ~UDGET I ']
-,- . -°~z~ ~s~.~' o~ ~s~ s er~ :~: ) --
· '- ~~ ~ST~ ~ ACCT NO.
- - "~O~T ~ OR O%~' B~GET' ~
_ ~. S~~ B~:
'" ~'~- D~w~ ~ -':o{~{~'~>~ccr z ' ~-'
ITEM 3
eneral / /
Homes /
x '~ ~ '\ ~: ~ ', -~-
,...,.
,~ .<~
January 27, 1986 ~.:.. Oa,~ g ~ ]~ ..~_~
Coppe~ City Engineer , ,
City of CoppeE
P. O. Box
CoppeE, Texas
RE: Drainage ditch failure adjacent to the Parkwoo8 E subdivision, CoppeD, Texas
Dem- Mr. Power:
I am contacting, you regarding the failure of the drainage ditch adjacent to the
subdivisions ParRwoo~ E anti Parkwood EL I was diseasing this matter with the board
of the CoppeE Municipal Utility District No. 1 ("CMUD") at the 8anua~y 14, 1986 meeting
at which you were present. It was my understanding, from the remarks made by
Proctor, that you wo~d be the person to contact. I have been attempting to reach you
by phone since the meeting; however, I have been ~able to flo so.
Briery, the soil supporting the eone?ete pilot channel has eroded ea~ing the channel
to co,apse in seve?~ locations. Approximately two h~drefl feet (200') of the pilot
ehm~el has been affected. Alley, storm sewer and ~rainage improvements ate ~ flanger
of co,apse if action is not taken soon to reetify this pPoblem. The entire channel was
desired ~d installed fluting the ~esign and construction' of Par~wood 5eetion One.
I have enelose~ the Parkwoo~ E plat showing the location of the failure. I wi~ ma~e
myself available at any time to meet with you to dise~s this matter further. Please
eon-~et me at yo~ earliest convenience.
Skrp ~y'~k '
Pro~ct/Manage~
SH/~
ce: Jeff Hawkins, Pierce Lundsford ~ Associates
Tom Wise, Dnivest
George Dudley, ThreadgiI]-Dowdey ~ Associates
Frank Proctor, Coppe~ City Manager
~',~_ .... _. _.) Wyse, ~,,~,M~----- h~m~ Corporation
15301 D~"las Parlo~'ay. Suite 1020 .t Dallas, Texas 75248 1 (214) 392-9200
February 3, 1986
Mr. Wayne Ginn, P.E.
Ginn, Inc.
16135 Preston Road
Suite 106
Dallas, Texas 75248
RE: Drainage Ditch failure in Parkwood Subdivision, Coppell, Texas
Dear Mr. Ginn:
At the request of Mr. Ed Powell, Coppell City Engineer, I am once again contacting
you regarding the drainage ditch failure in our Parkwood Subdivision. I would like to
meet on-site with you or an engineer from your office by February 11. The purpose of
this meeting will be to determine what has caused the present situation.
I have collected the soils tests and construction plans associated with the channel and
will be able to present them at our meeting. Since there is a risk of losing adjacent
improvements-and because of-our-construction schedule-for Parkwood III, I would like
to have this meeting at your earliest convenience. I would then appreciate it if your
office would contact Mr. Powell regarding your findings from the investigation.
I will make myself available at any time convenient for you or your staff.
Sincerely
Ski
Projec~t Mahager
SH/jf ....
ce: Mr. Ed Powell
Mr. Frank Proctor
Mr. Jeff Hawkins
Mr. Tom Wise
Mr. Sam Wyse, III
15301 Dallas Parkway. Suite 1020 ' Dallas, Texas 75°.,48 / (214) 392-9200
~H, ~exas 7501~
21~ . 462 - 0022
,/~'~,,," /~--'"~ The C~ty With A Beautiful Future
February 10, 1986 ~ ...' ~ .~
General Homes ~
15301 Da!las ?arkway
Suite
z020
Dallas, Texas 75248
ATTENTION: Mr. Skip Hynek, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Drainage Ditch Failure Adjacent to Parkwood ii
Dear Skip:
in response to your letter of january 27, 1986 and our
verbal conversation on or about January 27, 1986, tkis
is to confirm the City's position in this matter.
~ ~ The City acrees to the severity cf this problem.
It appears that it is caused by poor wcr~anship.
2.) The one ~=) year maintenance bond has expired.
3.)it is unreasonable to.expect the Citizens of'~Coppel!
to pay for the repairs to a project that is
aDDroximateiy ~
_. =, years old.
4.) It is reasonable to expect that General Romes would
want to present a better image in their market'ing
endeavors than to not repair tkis area of nhe drainage
channel that was constructed by their contractor.
The City of Coppell stands ready to ===ist you in any
way we can, short of asking our Citizens to spend tax
dollars for these repairs.
Sincerely, -. .... - .........
C~ty ~ng~neer
JEP/isg
cc: Frank Proctor
City.~nager
G cnera]
omes
April 9, 1986
Mr. Ed Powell, P.E.
Coppell City Engineer
P. O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75011
RE: Pilot Channel Failure in the Parkwood Subdivision Drainage Ditch, Coppell, Texas
Dear Mr. Powell:
I appreciate your help in placing this item on the April 22, Coppell City Council Agenda.
I am writing this letter to clarify General Homes position on this matter and to provide
members of the Council with a background of our previous discussions. A map of the
Parkwood area is attached and the portion of the pilot channel which has failed is
highlighted in red.
The pilot channel improvements were constructed in April, 1984, as part of the
underground utilities construction for Parkwood I subdivision. On September 12, 1984,
this construction was approved by Ginn, Inc., the City's Consulting Engineer. At that
time, the contractor submitted a one year Maintenance Bond as required by the City.
The Maintenance Bond expired on September 12, 1985. During the one year period of
the Maintenance Bond, there were no visible signs that the pilot channel was in any
....... . .... danger.
During the week of November 25, 1985, I discussed the failure of the pilot channel with
Steve Goram, Director of Public Works. He advised me to contact Ginn, Inc., which I
did on December 2, 1985. I suggested meeting at the site so that we could determine
some solution for the repair of the pilot channel. On December 4, Wayne Ginn asked to
be notified of the time of the meeting. On December 18, I contacted Ginn, Inc., and
Steve Goram to notify them that a meeting had been scheduled for December 20. Those
attending that meeting were representatives from the Coppell Municipal Utility District,
("CMUD'), General Homes, Univest and ThreadgiLt-Dowdey, engineers for General Homes.
No one from either the City of Coppell or Ginn, Inc., attended this meeting.
On January 6, 1986, I contacted Wayne Ginn and notified him that a meeting did take
plaee,--bfft~ha~--~t-was necessary., that representatives from the City be in attendance
in order to resolve this matter. Mr. Ginn suggested that we again schedule a meeting.
On January 14, 1986, Frank Proctor and you were at the monthly meeting of the CMUD.
I was discussing the drainage ditch failure with the CMUD board and later in the
meeting Mr. Proctor stated that you were the person I needed to talk with rather than
Ginn, Inc. After several attempts to contact you by phone, I wrote a letter on January
2?, 1986. On January 30, 1986, I contacted you at your office after a meeting which
was hel~ with the City Manager concerning another unrelated matter. At that time
you suggested that I discuss this with Ginn, Inc.
_ 15301 Dallas~Parloa'ay. Suite 1020: Dallas. Tex~.~ 75248 / (214) 392-9200
Mr. Ed Powell, P.E.
April 4, 1986
Page 2
On February 3, 1986, I wrote another letter to Mr. Ginn asking his office to once again
get involved. On February 10, 1986, I met with representatives of Ginn, Inc. at the
site. To my knowledge, no significant conclusions were obtained from their office.
On February 11, 1986, I received a letter from you stating that the City of Coppen had
no responsibility in this matter and that you felt it was "reasonable to expect" General
Homes to repair the channel. After further attempts to contact you by phone, I replied
to that letter on March 3, 1986, and asked for some basis for your conclusion. In that
letter I suggested that staff place this problem before the City Council. I requested
a response by March 10, so that General Homes could be scheduled for the March 25
City Council meeting. I found out on March 21 that the City Manager would not allow
this matter to be on the March 25 agenda because General Homes had another item on
that agenda. At that time I was assured that the drainage ditch would be discussed at
the April 8 meeting of the Council. On March 25, Pierce-Lundsford, engineers for the
CMUD, wrote you a letter explaining that they felt the digging of a borrow area at the
end of the channel may have caused this problem. (Copy of letter is attached). On
April 4, I was told that the pilot channel would not be discussed until the April 22
meeting so that the new Council would not have to deal with this problem at their
first meeting.
It is the understanding of General Homes that after the Maintenance Bond expires, the
City of Coppell is responsible for all maintenance and/or repairs which may become
necessary to any of the improvements in City-accepted subdivisions. In summary:
1. The design was approved by the City of Coppell;
2. The construction was approved by the City of Coppell;
-. 3. The Maintenance Bond -has.expired;
4. These improvements are the property and responsibility of the City of Coppell;
5. The City has permitted a significant physical change in the ditch outfall which
has resulted in the present failure of the pilot channel.
As you are aware we have been trying to develop our Parkwood III subdivision; however,
the CMUD will not allow the utility contractor to commence until some solution has
been achieved for repairing the pilot channel. I am sure you are aware of what delays
like this can cost our company. We are dependent on the City to assume their
responsibility immediately in order that we may proceed with our development. We
therefore request that the City Council direct that necessary repairs be made using
City forces or resources so that our development will not be delayed any further.
Sincerely,, /,. ---
Project Manager
SK/jf
cc: Coppell City Council Members
Frank Proctor, City Manager George Dudley, Threadgill-Dowdey & Associates
Tom Wise, Univest .... Wayne Ginn, Ginn, Inc.
" PIEF:ICF-LUNSFORD ASSLJCIATES, INC.
· -- CONS;JLTING ENGINEERS
Ref. No. 515342.10
CF EP3216
March 25, 1986
Mr. Ed Powell, P.E.
Coppeil City Engineer
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppel 1, TX 75011
Subject: Drainage Channel - Parkwood Subdivision
Coppell F..U.D. No. 1
Ccppe!l, Texas
Dear Mr. Powell:
The drainage channel west of Parkwood Section One and Two has
been undergoing a significant amount of deterioration due to
erosion at the do~'nstream end:~or the last several months, as you
are aware through letters of correspondence from representatives
of General Homes, developer and builder for Sections i, VT_~ and
-Ii. As District's Engineer for Coppel 1 M.U.D. No. I,
Pierce-Lunsford has brought this matter to the attention of
Coppell M.U.D. No. 1 Board members because the situation poses
potential problems for citizens livin9 in the district,
especially immed:-tely adjacent to the channel
Bids were opened February 26, 1986 for the Parkwood Section Three
utility improvement project. Award of contract is being held up
by Coppell M.U.D. until engineering -plans for improvements to
handle the anticipated flows in the channel, at ultimate
development, are executed and approved by City of Coppell and
Coppell M.U.D. officials, and funds are allocated to finance the
improvements, it is General Homes .contention that the City of
Coppell has some responsibility for these improvements since the
drainage easement was dedicated to the city along with platting
of the Parkwood i Subdivision and much of the runoff in the
channel comes f~om outside drainage areas outside those o~-ned by
General Homes. This discussion and the items enclosed are
intended to give you a better understanding of the original
desion and construction and factors that have led to the current
situation. This will enable you to determine what corrective
actions are appropriate to remedy the erosion problem.
The original channel improvements were constructed under the
Pa rkwood Subdivision, Section I utility improvement project.
The contract between Lanzo Construction Company and Coppe! !
Municipal Uti!i~y District No. 1, was executed on September 26,
~,,-,R~_I~..-. SUITE 206 3901 W. PIONEER PARKWAY. SUITE 100
DALLAS. TEXAS 7520-' ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76013
Mr. Ed Poweil, ?.E.
March 25, 1986
page 2
198~ ~ - ~.' ~
.. ~L,~ e=a~ll i-Dowdy Consu!tino Engineers desiDned the
construction plans which were approved by the City of Coppe!l and
Coppe!l M.U.D. prior to advertisement for bids.
The typical cross-section for the channel includes a 15 foot wide
earthen channel with 3:1 side =_lopes . An 8 foot concrete pilot
~ ~a~ ~ing
lining wa~ placed in the channel botton at a 0.10% slope s~ ~
at the 3 - span 8'x5' Bcx Culvert at Parkway Blvd. and ending
approximately 2,000 lineal feet to the north as shown on enclosed
design plan sheets. The pilot channel was required because of
the flat slope cf the channel Dottom. From that point, the
channel ori_cinally continued with the same cross-section but no
concrete lining on a 3.06% grade approximately 255 feet to
connect to an existing ditch that discharged directly to Denton
Creek, approximately 700 feet to the North. These improvements
were completed in April of 1984. Final approval for utility and
drainage channel improvements was made by Coppeil M.U.D. No. i,
The City of Coppe~ ~ and GINN, Inc in September of ~ 984
The contract for the Parkwood Section ii utilitvo ~m~ ~o~emen+~
project between Coppell M.U.D. and Regional Utilities Contracting
Corp. was awarded the same month and construction started up in
October of 1984. This project took one year to complete and
throughout its duration, no significant erosion was noticed to
the channel lining or side slopes. It was not until December of
1985 that it became apparent that the drainage channel was
undergoing significant erosion and undermining of about 200 feet
of the north end of the concrete lining and channel side slopes.
A meeting was attended on December 20, 1986 by representatives of
Pierce-Lunsford, General Homes, Wiseco Land Development,
Threadgil!-Dowdy to determine the cause and possible solutions to
the problem. Your engineer was asked to be there but could not
send a representative. Though an exact cause for the problem
could not be ascertained, the major contributing factors appeared
to be:
I. A large vclume of dirt has been excavated from the area
immediately downstream of the' - north-end- of the-concrete. --
channel lining to provide fill dirt for The Park Meadow I
and ii subdivisions and possibly Other areas to reclaim
these areas and raise grades above the 100-year flood
elevation. The north end of the channel lining was placed
at approximately elevation 452.4. The borrow pit was taken
down to about 438.0. This has created a steep hydraulic
grade and eddy currents where the channe!_ out fa l ls to the
area of excavation, thereby increasing velocities and
contributing to erosion cf the Channel. The enclosed plans
show how the channel profile has changed in areas of the
Mr. Ed Powell
March 24, 1986
page 3
channel lining, though I do not have survey verification
of the excavation pit grades at this time.
2. The existing channel cut-bank shows layers of different
soil types including sand, sandy-clay and clay, some of
which appears that it was not natural but was fill
material. In addition, there are no signs that side slopes
were seeded or hydromulched. Volunteer vegetation was too
sparce to protect side slopes.
3. Runoff has increased significantly from contributing
drainage areas adjacent to and south of the drainage
channel due to commercial and residential growth. It is
not known at this time whether actual flows have increased
beyond those used for the original design.
Because serious erosion was not noticed until recently, it is
thought that the excavation of the borrow pit at the outfail of
the channel was a major contributor to the erosion problem.
Coppe!l M.U.D. was not given the opportunity to review proposed
trading plans for the borrow area, nor to have any input into
design of a lined channel, drop structure or other improvements
to control erosion. A concrete drop structure with baffles was
placed to handle storm water in earthen channel west of Parkwood
I Subdivision when a similar borrow pit was excavated, and that
channel does not appear to be suffering from the type of erosion
as the channel through Park'wood;'
With rainfalls normally anticipated this time of year, erosion to
the existing channel will get more severe and costs for repairs
are sure to escalate. Work on fully lined open channels, box
culverts and off-site drainage improvements are not M.U.D.
sponsored items as are on-site utilities as set forth by the
Texas Water Commission criteria. They are therefore not bid as
part-of M.U.D. utility improvement projects. Coppell M.U.D. is,
however, concerned with the overall development of areas within
the district an~ citizens living in the district. Please review
these enclosure~ and your records so that this situation can be
remedied as soon as possible.
Your help and consideration in resolving this matter is
appreciated, i will be happy to meet with you in your office or
Mr. Ed Powell
March 25
page 4
at the channel site at your earliest convenience if you feel it
will be beneficial.
Sincerely Yours,
PIERCE-LUNSFORD ASSOCIATES, INC.
Jeffrey M. Hawkins
JMH/DB
cc: Coppell M.U.D. Board Members
Mr. Tom Wise, Univest
Mr. Wayne Ginn, Ginn, Inc.
Mr. Paul Phy
Mr. George Dudley, Thread~_ill-Dowdey & Associates
Mr. Skip Hynek, General Homes
, .,.. i ', ~ ' " ~ '~'' ...... '1~ ''" '
,. :.' ~
~ .. ::. . ..- . ' - . . - , . -.. .~ :4. · . ' '" 'L~ ....
'" .... " ' ": "i ....- ..... :~":~ ~ ': .......... :- ' i' '/:~.' .... " " - ' :
'B . . . . . . . ..... - . : .
.... ~ . ..,... ~ ... ~: - ; .... - ',.~: -..: .,..:l ., ' ' ' 4 :,; h :.1 ':
~ . . ~ .. ~ - .. ~.~m "~' I :J '-!"% ' ' ' :..i -.,'l-:;: 'i.:~
c ::'-:'!"' '.~...-I :- .:i'.h ,~ !'i.E'~.i ~',. :.1'.;:':'~ .-i,'?.,': .,-,i s : ....4..i :~ i -.~.':
- .. : . .,. ~ · .,~'~ ..-~. ,.-.. .,