ST9304-CS 970516 (2)he City With A Beautiful Future 214-462-0022
May 16, 1997
Jill Brim, P.E.
Public Works Department
Dallas County
411 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
Re: Belt Line Road Project # 490-403.1 / 91-829
Denton Tap Road to MacArthur Blvd.
City of Coppell Project ST 93-04
Dear Ms. Brim:
This letter is written in response to your March 5, 1997 letter that included four issues still
outstanding on the Belt Line Road project.
The fa'st issue deals with the City's responsibility for traffic lights, street lights, any conduits,
amenities, pavement markings, etc. I am well aware that the project scope and work sheet dated
August 27, 1994 detail that the aforementioned items are not approved for County funds. The
City is aware that they will be responsible for the cost of those improvements that lie within the
City of Coppell. However, a large portion of this proposed roadway lies within the City of
Dallas, including one traffic light. The City of Coppell is prepared to provide information
concerning the traffic light at Mockingbird and locations of conduits and pavement markings
along the roadway. The City is also prepared to fund those items that lie within the City of
Coppell. However, the traffic light that lies within the City of Dallas at Moore Road should be
funded by the City of Dallas and any pavement markings along Belt Line Road that lie within
the City of Dallas should also be funded by the City of Dallas. If the traffic light at Moore
Road is not funded by the City of Dallas, what is the County's position on providing traffic
control at that intersection? This needs to be clarified as soon as possible so the financial
responsibility for the project can be resolved.
The second issue deals with brick pavers. Regrettably, the City of Coppell asked that the full
intersection of Moore Road be provided with brick pavers. Upon review of the plans, it is
apparent that that was not a wise decision. At this time, the City of Coppell is committed to
having only paver bands at both the Moore Road and Mockingbird intersections.
The third issue discusses the drainage design on the western end of the project. Your letter is
correct in stating that the County was previously directed to utilize the existing 10' drainage
easement. This was labeled as alternate //2 on the drainage plans provided to the City of
Coppell. That was the most efficient, effective and economical way to address the drainage
from the south side of Belt Line Road. You are well aware that since that time there has been
discussion with TU Electric representatives about their development plans for the property on
the south side of Belt Line Road. The City of Coppell is comfortable in allowing the drainage
aspect of the project to be designed using existing runoff coefficients for the property south of
Belt Line Road. If the property were to develop at some point in the future, several options
would still be available most notably some type of detention/retention or routing the water in a
southerly direction to the existing lake. It is now my understanding that alternate//2 will no
longer be necessary and that line B can be drained into line C. My only question is: will line
C need to be upsized to accommodate line B and if so will the County be looking to the City of
Coppell to participate in that cost? If there is no cost consideration, then it appears as though
routing the water into line C provides the best solution. The water gets to the same location in
Grapevine Creek so there should be no concerns about diversion of water.
The fourth issue concerns amenities and improvements to the proposed bridge. The County is
correct in stating that in early 1995 the County was directed not to include sidewalks on the
bridge. That is still the City's position. However, it is our intent to stripe/button the outside
lane of the bridge if the City needs pedestrian/bicycle access across the bridge prior to widening
Belt Line Road to 6 lanes. If the City needs access across the bridge after widening Belt Line
to 6 lanes, then it is our intent to either replace the median with a "jersey barrier" and create
sidewalks along the edge of the proposed 92' wide bridge or cantilever sidewalks adjacent to the
proposed bridge. Will the bridge, as designed, handle both of these possible reconfigurations
of dead loads? As far as bridge railings and bridge lights, the standard TxDOT railing will be
acceptable; however, the City requests that some type of conduit be provided to accommodate
future bridge lights. As a side note, has the City of Dallas been contacted concerning whether
or not they are willing to fund any amenities to the proposed bridge considering the fact that it
lies within the City of Dallas?
In conclusion, there needs to be some discussion about cost sharing on the project and the role
of the County, the City of Dallas and the City of Coppell in the construction of this roadway.
Also, an updated cost estimate detailing financial responsibilities will be appreciated.
If you should have any questions please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Griffin, P. E.
Director of Engineering and Public Works
file/proj/dalas516.97