Old Town-CS020321 S e,,-t lc_ I^0,--4-1 p o�. _ a � (u�u(u t
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE
®7:i"
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING
To: Gary Sieb,Director of Planning
From: Ken Griffin,P.E.,Director of Engineering/Public Works
Date: March 21,2002—
RE: General Comments/Old Coppell Master Plan
In reference to the extension of Park Road through the Baptist Foundation property purchased by
the City, the City of Coppell took great pains to position its Service Center approximately 300 feet
off the roadway to minimize the visual distraction of storage of equipment and materials associated
with the Service Center. The construction of a roadway, as proposed along the north side of the
Service Center,could create aesthetic issues.
The proposal for Bethel Road is in conflict with our Thoroughfare Plan. The Thoroughfare Plan
shows Bethel Road as a C2U through the old part of town. It also provides information on a C2U
as being either 55 or 60 feet of right-of-way. The street within the 55-feet of right-of-way is 32 feet
wide and the street within the 60-feet of right-of-way is 40-feet wide. The plan, as proposed, shows
a 24-foot wide street with on-street parking. It also shows approximately 80 feet of right-of-way. I
am concerned whether or not there is more than 60 to 65 feet between the existing buildings much
less right-of-way.
The cross section for Coppell Road shows 60-feet of right-of-way and a 34-foot street with parking
on both sides. However, the Thoroughfare Plan shows that to have parking on both sides of a 2-
lane collector,you should have a minimum of 40-feet of paving.
The Thoroughfare Plan generally assigns approximately 8 feet to the roadway section if you have
on-street parking i.e., on the C2U that is 32 feet wide it is specified)one side parking only which
leaves approximately 24 feet for two 12-foot lanes. For parking on both sides of the roadway, the
C2U is increased to 40 feet, which again allows for two 12-foot lanes and two 8-foot areas for on-
street parking. The 24-foot width for the Bethel Road cross section does provide the two 12-foot
lanes. It is conceivable that with an overall plan as opposed to just a cross section which doesn't
work in all locations,that the 24-feet of driving lanes would satisfy the requirement for a C2U.
On Coppell Road, I am concerned that when you provide for parking on both sides of the road,
again using the concept that 8-feet is dedicated to the parking area,that you would only be left with
approximately 18-feet of driving area or two 9-foot lanes. I know the plan is recommending two
10-foot driving lanes,but under no circumstances in an improved area should those driving lanes be
less than 24 feet. Knowingly installing 10-foot driving lanes also would not suffice to meet the
requirements for a fire lane.
"CITY OF COPPELL ENGINEERING-EXCELLENCE BY DESIGN"
On Sheet 17 the turning radius at streets is discussed. Several of these areas are of a commercial
nature and quite conceivably could have deliveries from large trucks. A 5-foot turning radius at the
curb is typically inadequate for a turning radius for a truck especially given the fact that they would
be turning off a very narrow roadway.
I don't believe that my review of this study should include the financial impact. However, the
Fiscal Implication starting on age 24 seems to be misleading. There is no discussion in the report
about the actual cost of the improvements i.e., streets, walkways, streetlights, streetscape,
underground wiring, etc. Also,the discussion, prior to this point in the study,talks about providing
tax relief to encourage development. However, this section especially Step 3 Revenue Projections,
provides for a estimate of what the revenue could be off of this development if it were to develop as
residential and commercial as presented in the plan. However,the majority of that money would go
to the school, as opposed to the City, to help offset our cost. There is also no mention of the
homestead exemption. If in fact there is a positive net impact of over $300,000 I believe it would
be prudent to show how much of that is the City's financial impact as opposed to the schools. The
City would be the one responsible for the construction of all the improvements and potentially the
upkeep of the improvements. But again that is just an observation as I am not really reviewing this
from a fiscal standpoint.
Implementation aspect
It is my opinion that the timeframes are highly optimistic. In particular, constructing the streetscape
along Bethel and Coppell is shown to be short-term i.e., completed within one year. Even if that is
one year after the approval of the study, it is my belief that you would not construct the streetscape
improvements until you have constructed the road. The road design itself will take over a year to
complete and then will take some time to construct. Obviously, you cannot install the streetscape
components until you have constructed the roadway. So again, I believe that is an optimistic
timeline. Mid-term or even early long-term would probably be more realistic for the streetscape
improvements.
Generally it is my observation in reviewing the plan, that there are numerous areas where the plan
makes comments that are in conflict with other ordinances in place. Some of those are driveway
widths, street radius, right-of-way widths, paving widths, etc. Is it your intent, if this is adopted, to
go through and provide either a separate ordinance governing just the historical area or to go
through andyrovide changes to the other ordinances so that there is no confusion for developments
in this area.
"CITY OF COPPELL ENGINEERING-EXCELLENCE BY DESIGN"