Villages of CC 6-CS 940825 DEVELOPMENT VIEW COMMI EE
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
ITEM: Village of Cottonwood Creek. Sec4ion VI. Preliminary Plat, located east
of Coppell Road; north of Parkway Blvd., at the request of ~on
Engineering, Inc.
DRC DATE: August 25, 1994 and Sel~ember 1, 1994
CONTACT: Ken Griffin, P.E., Assistant City Manager/City Engineer (393-1016)
COMMENT STATUS: ~ PRELIMINARY
1. The Hike and Bike Trail adjacent to Lot 13. on the west side of the subdivision should
be shown.
2. Block letters should be shown.
3. An off site easement will be required for the discharge of your drainage improvements
adjacent to Lot 13.
4. It appear that some type of slope easement will be required adjacent to Lots 13 through
58.
5. You have shown the floodplain adjacent to Lots 12. 13 and 14. However. you are
showing an alley and portions of a lot in that floodplain. This area should be clearly
denoted as the "City of Coppell ultimate floodplain line" not the "F.I.R.M. floodplain
line". As you are well aware, the City does not allow any development within the
floodplain as defined by the F.I.R.M.
6. Escrox~ will be required for Coppell Road.
7. A 15 foot wide drainage easement should be provided a~iacent to and west of Gilford
DriYe from Lot 25 northward.
8. All easements should be shown on the face of the plat and be a minimum of 20 foot
wide.
9. All existing easements, along with the volume and page number, should be shown on the
face of the plat.
10. You should request a variance for the deletion of the alleys, not just include a note that
says they will not be required.
DEVELOPMENT REVIE~¥ COSI.MITTEE
ENGINEERING COMMENTS, cont.
11. Gifford Drive from Parkway to Kingsbury should be a collector street in 60 feet of right
of way.
12. As previously stated, the City has expressed a concern about sight visibility at the
intersection of Gifford and Parkway. You are showing a sight visibility easement.
hox,,exer..','our landscape plans show constructing a v'all in that easement along with
various types of landscaping. Please be advised that the City will allox,, no construction
of either walls or heavy landscaping within the sight visibility easement. Therefore. you
should adjust your lot lines and include the sight visibility easement as a common area
not as part of Lots 1 and 4.
13. Please provide the proposed centerline radius of your sanitaD- sewers on the face of the
plat and insure that they meet our Subdivision Regulations. This will be reviewed during
the construction plan review.
14. As I am sure you are aware, the 90" ReP does not have the capacity to convey the 100
)'ear storm runoff, Therefore. you should be evaluating ways to provide positive
overflow through this subdivision. These types of issues will be addressed during the
construction plan review.
15. On the storm drainage maps, you are showing a temporary channel design and then a
furore box culvert design. If the intent is to have a furore box culvert, then you should
construct that permanent improvement at this time not a temporary improvement.
16, Lot 1 appears to be unbuildable due to the sight visibility easement and the drainage
easement for the 90" ReP.
17. All information concerning this site will be required to be submitted to the City on
computer diskette compatible with the City's computer system. Please contact Doug
Steven at 393-1016 to obtain additional information.