ST8807-CS 880926GINN, INC.
CONSUl. TING ENGINEERS
September 26, 1988
Mr. Russell~e,
City of Conill
P.O. Box 4p8
Coppell, TX 75019
City Engineer
Re:
Royal Lane Extension
Construction Plans
,, SEP 2 §
Dear Russell:
We have reviewed the above referenced construction plans and
offer the following comments.
Per my conversation with Mr. Mark Connell on September 23, 1988,
regarding subject project, he stated he does not desire to
dedicate any drainage easements along Sandy Lake Road (Thweatt
Road) but rather desires to privately maintain the temporary
channel. We have no objections to this. In light of this, we
see no need for the pilot channel in the temporary channel. Our
original request for this was due to our understanding that the
City would have to maintain it since it was in an easement. This
latest information, however, proves that this will not be the
case. The City staff (ie., Public Works Dept.) should evaluate~
for Council's consideration, a recommendation as to whether a
verbal commitment at the September 23, 1988 meeting by the owner
or a formal maintenance agreement would be the vehicle to insure
maintenance. Either way, we recommend that the maintenance
responsibilities should: 1) be in effect until such time as the
temporary channel along Sandy Lake Road is enclosed, and; 2)
that the 2-6'x4' culverts under Royal Lane extension and the
8'X3.4' culvert under Sandy Lake Road be included in the scope of
maintenance responsibilities.
The trench safety plans, while not included in the plan set
submitted, has been discussed with the owner and will be
submitted in the construction sets. We have been informed by the
applicant that the gathering of field data and the design are
currently in progress.
Ail other comments by the staff have been appropriately
addressed.
17103 Preston Road · Suite 100 · LB 118 · Dallas, Texas 75248 · Phone 214/248-4900
In summary, we have no objections with the construction plans and
recommend this project move forward to Council at this time. We
shall verify that the plan sets to be stamped "Approved for
Construction", contain the trench safety plans.
On a related issue, it should be brought to the City Council's
attention that this alignment~.does not comply with the City's
Comprehensive Master Thoroughfare Plan. Before the construction
plans can be stamped "Approved for Construction", a revision to
the Master Thoroughfare Plan would be necessary by the City
Council, or, the plans should be revised to accommodate the
required roadway alignment. Our previous correspondence
discusses the alignment issue in further detail.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kev i~/~p'e i~~'
KP/dsp