ST8807-CS 880916The City With A Beaut',ful Future
September 16, 1988
P.O. Box 478
Coppell. Texas 75019
214 - 462 - 0022
Mr. Mark Connell
Connell Development
P.O. Box 541057
Dallas, Texas 75354-1057
RE: Royal Lane Extension Construction/One-Half Street
Variance/Subdivision Development
Dear Mr. Connell:
It appears that we are on the cutting edge by developing and completing
subject development to provide a roadway that will be a key connecting
link in the street network for the City of Coppell in the "Municipal
Fashion".
As you know, in seeking out practice and related documents for estab-
lished process and policy in constructing this roadway in Coppell, the
files were not replete with history or examples.
Therefore, we will need to continue to work together to provide an
acceptable package to the City Council so that this vital street con-
nection in this Light Industrial area can be completed. We are placing
your application on the September 27, 1988, City Council agenda.
Earlier this week, I have, by telephone, let Bill Anderson know the
elements we currently deem appropriate for the improvement. I have
consulted the appropriate City Staff to develop what is presented here.
We are committed to get your application to build this roadway to the
City Council, and successfully approved. (However, I can not act on
your behalf, but we can work together to resolve issues and to develop
alternatives to outstanding issues.) For expediency, I am issuing this
letter to you as well as copying the various other City personnel,
including Ginn, Inc., so that we can continue to fully complete you
application. Otherwise, more time would ~e consumed dewlopin~ th~
package requirements before we can then respond to you.
The basis of the application package, of course, is the Construction
Drawings, snd your engineer's "estimate to construct" based upon his
design and construction drawings as approved by the City. Your engi-
neer, Bill Anderson, had a meeting today to finalize the construction
drawings and engineers estimate. In the meantime, I am still using your
estimate previously submitted. Ginn, Inc, the City's development review
engineers, must have a complete package, and we must have a complete
review and comment from Ginn, Inc.
Please note, if you were building the full roadway, the process would be
merely an engineering review and approval; but since building only
one-half of the roadway requires a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance
(see attached paragraph 5) from tbs City Council, this application must
go through that approval process.
Subject to further discussion, we probably need some relational docu-
ments for the construction of a roadway in a dedicated public
right-of-way. Perhaps the three way contract used by the City of Dallas
Public Works Department for private development would provide us a
model? We are open to any suggestions. I do not have a handy copy of
the Dallas three way contract, but will obtain one.
Another relational document necessary will be the Water and Sewer
Pro-Rata Ordinance and possible Agreement for the specific project. We
are working with the City Attorney to create that ordinance and
agreement for your review and approval. (The construction drawings and
engineers estimate must be finalized before we can finalize financial
understandings further than at this point). It is not clear why you
have an estimate for natural gas utility lines in your estimates for
this public improvement project.
Two other issues that need to be addressed are evidenced in Ginn, Inc.'s
comments dated August 3, 1988, and August 31, 1988. (COPIES ATTACHED).
Bill Anderson was given these memos for his use and information previ-
ously. Likewise, you picked up a copy prior to the last Council meet-
ing. We must, at least, address any and all issues presented therein.
Regarding the issue about the alignment not "fitting" vis a vis the
established Sandy Lake Road/RTE 121 Interchange, enclosed is a copy of
the schematic where Oinn, Inc. presented the geometrics to me.
Regarding the issue about the alignment not being compatible with the
City's currently approved transportation plan, I have been in numerous
discussions with the West Side Light Industrial Property Owners Asso-
ciation, and their engineers, urging them to forward their proposals for
a change in the Transportation Plan formally, so the City can act upon
it. My latest meeting was with Mr. Bill Thompson and Nathan Maier
Engineers. In any case, we must develop a position (not necessarily
going through changing the transportation plan) that will be acceptable
to all concerned. I will not cite possible alternatives to be con-
sidered that come to mind here, but have and will discuss them with your
engineers and/or yourself.
Now to the financial area. Based on the numbers furnished to-date by
assuming a 50/50 participation by you and the contiguous owner, (since
the City has no funding and will have none for this in the immediate
future), it appears that:
1)
For water and sewer, a pro-rata ordinance and agreement will
complete the item.
2)
For streets and drainage, there is a $28,000~deficit given
the numbers furnished and it is not clear whether there are
added costs for the transition construction (i.e. from two (2)
lane to four (4) lane divided) and if so, who will assume
those costs.
3)
As mentioned above, it is not clear why natural gas utility
lines are in this public improvement.
4) Both street lights and landscaping are omitted in the proposed
numbers for the two (2) lane roadway. This presents a
$17,000+ and $5,200+_deficit.
Therefore, with my cursory review there appears to be a $55,000+_deficit
(including engineering, etc.) that will need to be addressed, as to
whether you would escrow that amount o_~r ? . The topic of escrow may
not ever reach the City Council level, but we (The City Staff) must have
this issue addressed and accommodated. Only in working together can we
do that.
Again, this letter is sent to communicate the needs and the issues. We
need to work together to tie up any and all loose ends. I am working on
the pro-rata ordinance and agreement development. Your engineer is
working on the construction drawing finalization, and this will be
placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting of Tuesday, September
27, 1988. As in my memo dated September 9, 1988, (COPY ATTACHED) we
tried moving this packet forward before and admittedly when all items
were compiled and evaluated; Submission to the City Council was
premature. I am sorry for that, but we will get it completed together.
Thank you.
Sincerely,/~ /
/ ,/"/,.:' j,,' .~,~ -
._~. ,~.,--x ~V'/. ~"/f ~ /.. '
//,~ssell R." Doyle, ~.
City Engineer '
RRD/lsg
Steve Goram, Director of Public Works
Glnn, Inc., Consulting Engineers
Taryon Bowman, P&Z Coordinator
Shohre Daneshmand, Civil Engineer
Richard Terry, Acting Fire Chief
Dale Jackson, Building Official
Bill Anderson, Roberts Dowdy Engineers
ROYAL.LN.%STREET
MEMO1
A=te=lal st=eets shall tntecsect at 90 deg=ee angles
unless othe=wtse app=oYed by the City.
Half-st=eets shall be p=ohibtted, except when
essential to the =easonable development of the
subdivision and whe=e the City Council finds it will
be p=acttcal to =equt=e the dedication of the othe=
one-half when the adjoining p=ope=ty is subdivided.
St=ips of p=tvately owned p=ope=ty =ese=red fo= the
obvious pu=pose of cant=oiling access
shall be p=ohtbited except whe=e cant=al is
definitely placed in the City unde= conditions
app=oved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
St=eet alignments with cente=ltne offsets of ]ess
than 125 feet shall be p=ohibtted.
A cul-de-sac shall not be longe= than 600 feet and at
the closed end shall have o tu=n a=ound p=ovtded,
having a minimum outside =oadway diamete= of 80 feet
and a minimum st=eet p=ope=ty line diamete= of
feet. Pa=king islands shall be =equl=ed if onst=eet
pa=king is desl=ed in the cul-de-sac. If pa=king
islands a=e included, the diamete= of the cul-de-sac
shal] be designed to facilitate cl=cula= movement of
t=afftc a=ound the cul-de-sac
At the trite=section of a new subdivision st=eet with
an existing bouleva=d a=te=tal, the Develope= of the
subdivision shall const=uct a median opening in the
bou]eva=d, unless othe=wtse di=ected by the City.
Appendix A