Loading...
DR0301-CS021002 MEMORANDUM FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING To: From: Date: RE: Jim Witt, City Manager Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., Dir. of Engineering/Public Works October 2, 2002 Lot 20, Block A Shadowridge Estates / 252 Plantation Drive This memo is written in response to the September 8, 2002 letter from Mark W. Suthefland, P.C. concerning the existing drainage and utility easement located on the aforementioned property. Specifically two questions are asked by Mr. Sutherland: 1) who is responsible for the maintenance of the easement; and 2) who is responsible for the maintenance of the structures? The maintenance of the easement is no different than prior direction of the city conceming creeks or drainage ways adjacent to properties. That direction has been that the property is owned by the property owner and as such should be maintained by the property owner. The issue concerning maintenance of structures has several components: 1) the maintenance of the hard structures such as the existing concrete flume, culverts and headwalls; 2) the maintenance of the existing retaining wall on the north side of the drainage way; and 3) the maintenance of the existing retaining wall on the south side of the drainage way. Each of those components will be explained in detail. The Public Works Department has always maintained hard improvements within drainage and utility easements. These range from headwalls to pipes, to concrete channels, etc. We do not maintain the grounds around those improvements, such as providing mowing services. The question concerning retaining walls is broken into two issues because of the location of the walls. The first issue is the wall along the southern side of the drainage easement adjacent to the home. This could be viewed in much the same way as we have viewed the walls along the rear of properties adjacent to creeks in that the wall is there to protect the private property of the homeowner and offers a value to that property. The city has taken a position that we do not maintain those types of walls, nor expend city dollars on private property to maintain those walls. The second issue is the wall along the north side. This wall closely follows the situation we found ourselves in along the rear of the "Seraphin property" several years ago. The "Seraphin property" offered a situation where maintenance had to be performed by the City to protect a city improvement i.e., the existing sanitary sewer line that served approximately one-half of Coppell. The retaining wall on the north side is very similar in that it is protecting an alley that runs along the south side of the Wynnpage Subdivision. Failure of the wall on the north side could create failure of the alley. The alley is in a public right-of-way and is maintained by the City of Coppell. "CITY OF COPPELL ENGINEERING - EXCELLENCE BY DESIGN" Therefore, it would be prudent on the city's part to provide maintenance of the retaining wall along the north side to prevent failure and damage to city infrastructure. Realizing that the wall along the north side was a problem, it was included in the Bond Program presented to the voters in 1999. Even before it was included in the Bond Program in 1999, it was identified as a problem area in the City of Coppell Citywide Storm Water Management Study, dated January 1991. In essence, there is an isolated section of the retaining wall along the north side where the creek takes a turn fi.om an easterly to a southerly direction that is creating erosion and compromising a portion of a retaining wall. I have spoken with the Finance Department concerning available drainage funds fi.om the first sale of money associated with the drainage portion of the Bond Program. There are funds available to initiate another drainage project. We have just recently completed the first project on the drainage list, which was Meadowcreek Road. There is currently inadequate funds to do Kaye Street, so therefore, with the available funds we can initiate the retaining wall project adjacent to the Wyrmpage alley. My first approach will be to contact a firm such as Craig Olden, Inc. Gabion Specialist to discuss the retaining wall and ways to remedy the situation. From there I am unsure as to whether or not to continue with Olden, Inc. or design an alternate wall section to put out to bid. In summary, it is my opinion that if there are any maintenance problems with the hard improvements such as the time, headwall, or culvert, it is a city responsibility to rectify the situation. The retaining wall on the south side is a property owner responsibility in keeping with prior direction of the city. Any maintenance associated with the grounds around the retaining walls and/or the hard improvements is a property owner's issue, again in keeping with the direction of the city in prior situations. The repair of the northem retaining wall is a City responsibility based on protecting our existing infrastructure i.e., the alley, and the fact that it was included in the 1999 Bond Program. I will keep you informed of the status of this issue as it moves forward. "CITY OF COPPELL ENGINEERING - EXCELLENCE BY DESIGN"