Creekview North-CS 881103 (2))ATE SENT. ~ RESPONSE DUE:
ACTION REQUESTED
READ AND COMMENT F Y I
FOR YOUR APPROVAL NOTE & FILE
NOTE & REPLY
NOTE & RETURN
SET UP APPOINTMENT TO REVIEW ATTAC'~ED
PLEASE TAKE CI-IARGE OF THIS
PREPARE RESPONSE FOR MY SIGNATURE
OTHER
:line Construction
dated 20 Oct 1988
dated 24 Oct 1988
dated 24 Oct 1988
RETURN THIS FORM WITH [ica
R E S P 0 N S E ! .pul
~ro[
cunu~uu~ ~.,~ ....... :de~
This is a serious error and doe~ N__(
of the city.
The act of installing the sewer line
makes the developer totally responsi
creek bank, both in the area of the
of. This proposed fix, while protec
ment, also accelerates the natural ~
downstream of the proposed wall. Th
the position of the wall segment in
Specifically, the impact of the curt
to the creek bank within the area ex
ft upstream. ~herefore, covering h
concrete wall merely compounds the e
adjacent to the wall. The proposed
imum of 20 ft further upstream and a
to comprise a wall 56 feet minimum i
will provide the necessary protectio
future liability for repair &/or ext
length.
The city staff has apparently adopte
rather than insisting on a proper pe
rom the desk of
Russ DOYLE
recommend that you advise the staff u~ u~ uuu==qu=~== u~ aFF~u~-
ing the proposed fix stated in the reference C letter.
Both ends of the design spectrum (i.e. leaving the creek bank in its
natural state and channeling the entire reach of the creek bank) are
acceptable engineering solutions. Both are engineering opinions and
designs, and involve economics, which is another dimension.
Another professional engineer approved these construction drawings
providing another level of professional judgement. As the City
Engineer for the City of Coppetl, I must maintain my legal and
professional limits or possibly liable and/or jeopardize the City of
Coppell and my license to practice.
I hope I have provided you with what we discussed last week, and
assure you that we have the traditional legal and professional
checkpoints and assurances, and options available to us within the
process. I will work with you and the design engineer (through the
Development Inspector division of the Public Works Department) to
resolve this matter as best we can. Thank you.
Since~,
RRD/lsg ,
xc:
Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager
Shohre Daneskmand, Civil Engineer
Steve Goram, Construction Control
WJOHNSON.LT
October 28, 1988
City of Coppell
City Hall
Coppell, Tx. 75019
Attn: Mr. Alan Ratliff,
Subject: Creekview Estates
Ref: (A) W.B.
(B) A.D.
(C) N.D.
Johnson -
Ratliff
Maier
Sewerline Constructi~lTY MANAGER
letter dated 20 Oct 1988
letter dated 24 Oct 1988
letter dated 24 Oct 1988
Dear Mr. Ratliff,
Subsequent to the receipt of your letter (ref A), I received the
ref C letter from Peter Staks indicating that the protective wall
proposed by Creekview Estates will be approximately 30 feet long,
in liew of the 56 foot length stipulated in my approved drawing
(ref A). I have discussed this proposal with Russell Doyle and
conclude that the city has conceeded to the developer's wishes.
This is a serious error and doe5 NOT represent the best interests
of the city.
The act of installing the sewer line, piers and other construction
makes the developer totally responsible for the protection of the
creek bank, both in the area of the easement and on each side there-
of. This proposed fix, while protecting the sewer line and ease-
ment, also accelerates the natural erosion process upstream and
downstream of the proposed wall. This primarily the result of
the position of the wall segment in relation to the creek channel.
Specifically, the impact of the current is approximately 80 degrees
to the creek bank within the area extending from the sewer line 50
ft upstream. Wherefore, covering half of this bank area with a
concrete wall merely compounds the erosion of the unprotected area
adjacent to the wall. The proposed wall should be extended a min-
imum of 20 ft further upstream and an additional 5 ft. downstream,
to comprise a wall 56 feet minimum in length. Only a longer wall
will provide the necessary protection without exposing the city to
future liability for repair &/or extention of the wall to the proper
length.
The city staff has apparently adopted a "wait and see" attitude
rather than insisting on a proper permanent solution. I strongly
recommend that you advise the staff of the consequences of approv-
ing the proposed fix stated in the reference C letter.
Mr. A.D. Ratliff -2- October 28, 1988
I personally disavow all responsibility and/or liability associa-
ted with the proposed 30' long retaining wall. I also hereby
withdraw any approval, written or verbal, other that the approval
specified in my ref A letter.
Please note that I feel the developer is wholly responsible for
any accelerated erosion and /or other damage etc. caused as a
result of placing the sewer line in the bend of the creek. When
the city accepts title to this utility easement, all responsibility
shifts to the city. Therefore, any repair, rebuilding or extension
of the wall will be at city expense. Also, the repair of any dam-
age to property adjacent to the sewer line/ easement would be at
city expense. This exposure is NOT warranted.
We both recognize the consequences of the temporary fix being
proposed by the developer, however, I feel your staff does not
share this philosophy. I strongly recommend this fix be "done
~ thus eliminating future problems for the
right the first time",
city.
Sincerely,
WBJ: cj
Attachment