Country Estates-CS 920512_The City With A Beautiful Future
Hay 12, 1992
Mr. Mike Daniel, P.E.
Nathan D. Maier /
Three Northpark /
8800 N. Central Express, Suite 300 ~
The City of Coppell has received and reviewed the reference plans
the following comments to offer:
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
214-462-0022
and has
1) When will the landscape and irrigation plans be submitted or
will there be any plans?
2) The drainage easement on Lot 1 Block B should be reflected on
the plat.
3) Based on the relocated inlets on Shorewood Drive and the
floodway easement, it will be quite difficult to gain access to
Lot 3 Block A. Please reevaluate this situation.
4) The drainage area map does not coincide with the site grading
plan. Please make sure that these two documents match.
5) The discharge of Line B into Grapevine Creek should be in the
direction of the flow of Grapevine Creek. It's quite possible
that a flaired drainage easement may be needed at the back of
Lot 10 Block A.
6) On the modified type C headwall, please show that the side
slopes will be graded at a 4 to i elope not a 2 to 1 slope.
Also, show whether the disturbed dirt will be sodded or
hydromulched.
7) Please comment as to why Line B is not being discharged at the
flowline of the creek. In your opinion, will the drop from the
pipe to the flowline of the creek cause greater erosion,
possibly beneath the headwall.
8) The portion of Line B from Station 2 + 40 to Station 3 + 90
should be lowered to get beneath the 8" sanitary sewer line.
Letter to Hr. Hike Daniel, P.E.
Nay 12, 1992
Page 2
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20}
21)
The velocities in the channel between Lots 3 and 4 Block A
should be sho~n.
The proposed ground above Line A on the east side of Shorewood
Drive ehould be revised.
Public Works has requested that the storm drainage system be
extended to the eastern property line. I a~ concerned about
what effect Line C will have on the overall potential for
erosion. The headwall itself will create an obstacle to the
flo~ of water in the ditch section and over a period of years
will erode, especially on the ~est side of the headwall.
All standard details should be provided.
Notice the con~ents on Sheet 6 regarding the general notes and
the request for additional details associated with the
waterline.
A minimu~ finished floor of 1 foot above the low point sbould
be provided on Lot 3 Block A. It appears as though the
finished floor should be 505.9.
The construction of a house on Lot 3 will be so close to the
proposed floodwa~ easement that a retaining wall will he
required in this area. Will this wall be constructed with this
develop~ant?
The finished floor on Lot 1 Block B should he 1 foot above the
low point elevation on Betbel School Road. It appears that the
finished floor elevation should be 504.0.
The flow arrows in drainage area 4 are shown incorrectly.
should show the low point inlet.
It
The flow arrows in drainage area 8 are shown incorrectly.
Portions of drainage areas 6 and ? are inconsistent with the
drainage area map, These two drawings should be consistent.
The finished floor for Lots 10 and 11 Block B should be 1 foot
above the low point elevatiun, It appears as though the
elevation should be 502.9.
The slope across the front of Lot 11 Block B is too flat.
Please reevaluate this area.
Letter to Mr. Mike Daniel, P.E.
May 12, 1992
Page 3
22)
Per our previous conversations, there will be some type of bag
wall design for erosion protection along Grapevine Creek.
These plans should clearly show the limits of that bag wall
protection and the design of the bag wall should be sealed by
an engineer.
Once these co~nts have been addressed, the check set and revised set of
plans should be resul~itted to the City.
If you should have any questions or coeaents, please feel free to contact
me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
CO~TR1