DR9306-CS 921215 MEMO
TO: Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager
FROM: Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
SUBJECT: An Encroachment Into Drainage Easement/
Phone Call with Lee Richardson
DATE: December 15, 1992
As you are aware, I spoke with Mr. Richardson on December 10, 1992 concerning the work
performed on the pool and deck behind his property. Mr. Richardson was concerned that,
during the construction of the improvements, the excess dirt was spoiled on his property without
his consent.
I met with Mr. Robinson in July of 1992 concerning this project. It was my understanding that
he would be regrading the ditch and possibly filling in some of the low areas where standing
water was creating a nuisance. In speaking with Mr. Richardson, it is my understanding that
some of the low areas were filled in. However, the channel was not regraded. I informed Mr.
Richardson that initially it was my opinion that it would be beneficial to the City of Coppell and
the citizens adjacent to this creek to have some improvements made to the existing channel. Mr.
Robertson and myself spoke on a conceptual type basis, not a specific detailed type basis. I was
under the assumption that all necessary permits and approvals would be obtained prior to the
work actually being performed. Even though the concept was agreeable to myself, it is my
opinion that carte blanche approval was not granted to go on other peoples property against their
wishes.
Mr. Richardson stated that Mr. Robinson is willing to grade the channel. However, initially
they wanted to take the excess dirt to 622 Hawk where the pool was being built. Mr.
Richardson asked them to place the excess dirt on his property adjacent to his wall to help an
existing erosion problem. It was Mr. Richardson's opinion that the dirt was on his property and
should be spoiled on his property. The affected property owners were not able to come to an
agreeable solution. Therefore, the grading of the channel never took place. However, there was
some dirt placed on the low areas of Mr. Richardson's property. Also, Mr. Richardson stated
that he had planted grass and mowed and maintained the area adjacent to the creek and during
the construction of the pool, the fence, and the other amenities at 622 Hawk, those
improvements were damaged to some extent and have yet to be replaced/fixed.
Memo to Mr. Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager
- December 15, 1992
Page 2
I apologized to Mr. Richardson for not specifically including him in the initial discussions about
this construction. I did inform Mr. Richardson that when he and his neighbor reached an
impasse this summer, that I would have been more than willing to assist them to come to some
agreement of the proper work to be performed in the channel area. I also informed Mr.
Richardson that I was still available if he and his neighbor and Mr. Robinson wished to meet
on the site to discuss what could be done at this point.
On December 8, 1992, I met with Mr. Joe Moore of 618 Hawk concerning the work that had
taken place at 622 Hawk. In meeting with Mr. Moore, it was initially my understanding that
he had a concern about the affects the work had on the drainage. However, in talking with Mr.
Moore, his real concern was the fact that the fence along the common property line between 618
and 622 Hawk appears to have been constructed on his property. He also stated that during his
investigation, that no fence permit had been obtained for the fence. I have not personally
investigated to ascertain whether or not a fence permit was obtained. During the course of our
conversation, Mr. Moore stated several times that he was not particularly concerned about any
affect that the improvements have had on the drainage. He stated that it was his opinion that
there had been no adverse affect on the drainage. He also expressed some minor concern that
-- he had planted fescue grass adjacent to the channel and that during the course of the construction
equipment had gotten onto his property and damaged it and it has not been replaced or repaired.
In conclusion, it is still my opinion that the work that has taken place has not adversely affected
the drainage through this area and that if the grading of the channel had taken place, there would
have been a positive impact on the drainage through this area. There was also some
misunderstanding on the right to place dirt on private property without the property owner's
permission to do so.
I would be happy to discuss this with you at your convenience if you so choose.
KMG/bd
encroach
TICKLER FILE FOR:
INITIATED BY:
SUBJECT:
~~ ~~~..1~,
FOT,T~W UP:
( date )
PLEASE RETURN THIS FOR~WITH RESPONSE!!
GUARANTEED
BUiLD G
'~ _~, "Commercial Office Building Specialists"
JOE L. MOORE
(214) 407-920~
Pager 992-9798
3440 Sojourn Dr. #200 Carrollton, Texas 75006
Division of Norris Investments, Inc.
[ TICKLER FILE FOR:'
((date)
INITIATED BY:
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH RESPONSE! !
:
.
E~ISTING
/~S ~ ~ ~ ~ L~ .......... ~. . ....~.
/W~ ~Y ~ ?'- - .~ ....
~CRETE '" . x ,
~, W~OE CON~ETE
~NUNDATI~.[INE WITH
~ECOM~ND~.tMPROVE~NTS '
' ~'~ '~ ~EO CULVERT
3~0 "" IMPROVEMENT
'~ rLINE ~'~
~ ENLAR~ ExIST'lNG CHANNEL .lt~, "~
"~,0~ I sc,ooL .o*o,~ ·
~ / ~ ~.. CONTROL&CLEAR ~: ' *
CHANNEL x ~
~ '..~:~>;~s -:- ~ ~lN AT 1.27% ~"
AERIAl_ SURVEYS, lNG, ~ ACGU~AGY ~TANDA~D ALL WI~H ~EB~UA~ ~0 A~
I
0(2)-6('0. cfa ~(~1- i50. cfa ~ 0(~ 375. cfa ~ G(2)-;
525
515
505
0
0
495
IPOSED ~O-YEAR Wi
485 "~-~-
)KWATER FRCM ~ ~
03 n 'tOO YEAR
'~RAPEVINE ;RK.
475
n 2 YEAR
!EROSI( PROTECTION
PROI D FLOW .INE
455
IMPROVE CHANNEl ;LEAR CH,~
..... o GRADE TO DRAIN
+
~n
445
0 500 1 000 I 500 2000 2500 3000 3500
DTSTANCE FEET
· "m----- I ,liAVFNCR LN /
MEMO
TO: Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager
FROM: Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., City Engineer ~,~
SUBJECT: Citizen Complaint Concerning Alteration of
Drainage Easement at 622 Hawk
DATE: December 3, 1992
This memo is written in response to the tickler with a December 5, 1992 deadline concerning the
construction of a pool and retaining wall at 622 Hawk. As I briefly mentioned to you, I met with
the pool builder, Ron Robertson, on July 17, 1992 concerning the construction of a pool and
retaining wall. Based on a field investigation, the fact that there is not a drainage easement at
the rear of the property at 622 Hawk and the fact that the creek is entirely contained upon the
property behind 622 Hawk, it was my opinion that the construction of the pool would not have
an adverse affect on the drainage through this property.
Mr. Robinson stated that he would be filling in some of the low marshy areas and that he would
also regrade the ditch to allow for positive flow through the area. One of the reasons for the
approval was that the ditch would be regraded. Regrading this existing ditch is identified in our
Storm Water Management Plan as a future project.
As I stated in our brief discussion on this matter, I would like to revisit the site to determine if
the construction took place as I understood that it would.
You stated that you could provide me with the phone number of the complainant so I could make
arrangements to visit and inspect the area. I am aware that this complaint should be treated
confidentially.
KMG/bd