ST9801-CS 990120 (2)Alan D. Greer, P.E.
Freese & Nichols, Inc.
1341 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 230E
Dallas, TX 75247
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
972-462-0022
January 20, 1999
RE: Coppell Road ST 98-01
Dear Mr. Greer:
I apologize for not being able to attend the meeting last week with my staff concerning the
reference project. However, I was briefed somewhat on the outcome of the meeting and I have
looked at the plans. I have several overall concerns and some specific comments on the plans
that need to be addressed considering the fact that we are on a very tight timeframe.
1. Need TxDOT permit for water and roadway.
2. Need to determine whether or not sanitary sewer design will be provided across the Adams
and Startton tracts.
3. It appears as though the entire power pole system for TU Electric needs to be relocated.
4. Have construction plans been sent to franchise utility companies as of this date?
5. Have the trail plans been sent to Leisure Services for their comments?
6. If possible, I would appreciate a half copy of the plans for my field investigation.
The following comments represent some concerns I have with the design as presented:
.~ere needs to be consistency between all sheets on the drainage. Several sheets show
'./Th-~ts and laterals, etc. that are not found on other sheets.
ere needs to be a 12" valve provided somewhere around Sta. 7+00 to Sta. 8+00.
There should also be several 8" stub outs to the property to the north.
,/3(. As stated, the City of Coppell would like to replace the 10" line currently in Coppell Road.
In looking at your water line plan design, instead of jogging the proposed 12" line at Sta.
41 +89 it could probably continue straight into the existing 10' line with a 12" going off
from that point south. It may be possible to leave the northern portion of the 10'' line in
place since it has an existing fire hydrant on it.
.fi,/In the paving notes on Sheet GN, all references to the City of Coppell Department of
Traffic and Transportation should be changed to the City of Coppell Engineering
Department.
..,~5~/On Paving Note #5, the last sentence should be removed. All areas of the subgrade should
be modified with not 30 but 42 pounds per square yard. My previous recollection was that
we were going to be mixing initially to 8 '' and mixing to 6".
(6.. Have all the intersecting streets been thoroughly checked out to insure that we are not
creating abrupt PI's in the roadway. At Eastwick it appears there is a 7% 'grade
immediately shifting to a 1% grade.
--- 8. There should be a bid item for relocating the fence along the west side of the project.
'-"9. Please explain why 35 foot radius were provided for Minyard Drive. Also, it appears the
right-of-way around Minyard Drive is shown incorrectly. The sidewalk on the south side
of Minyard appears to be constructed on private property. There needs to be some
additional investigation. The right-of-way on the north side of Minyard Drive shows that
.~Ae wall was built in our right-of-way. Is this correct.9
provision for sidewalk should be provided at the ramp at the southeast corner of
Westminster Way and Coppell Road.
~.Some consideration should be given to shifting the sidewalk east to miss the entire row of
power poles. That may be a moot issue once TU looks at this. Due to the cuts on the
road, they may need to relocate those poles anyway.
~12. Please explain why 35 foot radius are provided to the Mansions on the Lake.
1~ was somewhat concerned to discover that the entire stamped concrete for the entrance to
Mansions on the Lake will have to be removed and replaced. If possible, please investigate
raising the roadway in this area to salvage the existing stamped concrete entrance.
---1-zf~o~ super-elevation run-out between Sta. 40~-23.4 and Sta 40~53.4, appears to have the
water flowing in the wrong direction along the left curb line. Initially, I was concerned
how this would be drained. But other sheets show an inlet in that general area. I am at
this point unsure what is correct.
1J}~our super-elevation run-out between Sta 43~42.7 and Sta 43-F42.7 (one of those is
obviously wrong) shows the right curb line has the water flowing away from a low point
inlet. Please investigate.
3~.I am somewhat concerned about the existing north driveway to the Mansions on the Lake.
My calculations show that there is somewhere between a 10% and 19% grade difference
from that driveway to the street. Does this match your calculations and what is your
thought on flattening that out somewhat.9
~.There is a problem with the existing 24" gas line as it crosses Storm Drain Line A1. They
are in direct conflict. It is not feasible at this time of year to even consider lowering the
24 '' gas line and because of the grades of Storm Drain A 1 it is not feasible to lower or raise
it. Therefore, my recommendation is to eliminate Storm Drain Line A 1 in its entirety. It
appears the drainage could be collected in the inlet currently proposed at Sta. 3 ~-19.09 and
then taken east to the existing 18" stub out provided by Villages of Cottonwood Phase V.
You may need to look at their system to insure it is adequate to handle this water but at this
point there are not a lot of options available to the City.
--l-8fDrainage information should be provided for the entire storm drain lines.
,1-93~eet SD7 that includes all the lateral profiles needs work. My only though is that this
sheet was provided and turned in prior to being completed because information alluded to is
not contained on the sheet.
· Fl~he proposed 81 linear foot brick wall shown on Sheet SD8 should be eliminated. Upon
further review of this area it is possible that the wall could become an impediment to the
maintenance of this area in the future. It is possible that some type of living vegetation
could be planted in this area for screening purposes, but the brick wall will cut off access
permanently.
----- 24.
25.
~rT~he channel bottom should be a minimum of 10 feet wide. This is required in our
Subdivision Ordinance and is necessary for removal of silt and maintenance of that area.
~'5~ainage information should be provided for the triple 10 x 6 box culvert.
/23. The proposed sloped end on the 96" RCP should have a minimum of 3:1 slope. Also, all
details that I have seen show that the bars placed on the slope are placed in an up and down
direction not a side to side direction. They are typically three inches outside diameter.
On Sequence 3 / Phase 3 Traffic Flow, the note states that local traffic between Corporate
Park and S.H. 121 will be provided two-way traffic. However, your plan view does not
show two way arrows. What is correct in this area?
The traffic control plans for all three phases look like they should be workable. I am in the
process of providing a memo to the City Manager stating what our intentions are on this
project as far as traffic control and road closures. If he has a problem, then I will attempt
to provide the information to Council in work session format so that they are aware of our
intentions on the construction of this project.
I am also in the process of providing a memo to the City Manager on an incentive clause. He
was somewhat receptive but has asked me to place my thoughts in a memo. Based on my
memo to the City Manager the incentive clause may be set at a maximum $75,000 if the
project is completed by December 31, 1999.
This memo is not meant to supercede or change direction on any comments you may have had
during your discussing with Mike or Kent. All items discussed in that meeting should be
complied with as determined in the meeting. If there are any conflicts between that meeting
and this letter please contact me at your convenience. I am also providing copies of this letter
to Mike and Kent and if they have any discrepancies from the meeting they will also let me
know.
If you should have any questions concerning these issues please feel free to contact me at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E.
Director of Engineering and Public Works