ST9301A-CS 960318 DALLAS COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS
March 18, 1996
Mr. Lloyd James, P.E., Project Managgr
Charles Gojer and Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
11615 Forest Central Dr~ #204
Dallas, Texas 75243
Re: Sandy Lake Project 91-838
(Coppeli E. city Limits to Dallas city Limit)
Driveway and Right of Way for the Harrington Property
Dear Mr. James:
Reference is made to your submittal dated March 8, 199.6 of a plan and
profile view for the proposed driveway at the Harrington (Bait Shop)
property. Before we forward this to the City of Coppell for final
concurrence, we require that you check and if needed, revise several
items, dimensions or elevations.
Also, we have questions and we have anticipated questions that might
.be asked by Ken Griffin with the City of Coppell. We have also
itemized and listed our questions .in this letter. The specific
requests or inquiries are documented below:
DRIVEWAY PROFILE
1. YOU have provided an elevation of 452.85 for top of curb at
driveway station 0+03. Using your previous plan submittal I
determined an elevation of 452.01 for this point. I realize that
there were some errors (see my letter to you dated January 12,
1996) for the profile .gradient on the previous submittal but I
did not know the differences were as great, i.e., 0.84'. Please
provide Dallas County with a copy of the correct plan sheet with
corrected gradients, we will then be better able to check the
information you have provided.
2. Irrespective of comment number 1 and using the aforementioned
elevation of 452.~5, then subtracting for the curb height and
subtracting for the pavement cross fall I calculated that the
top of pavement elevation for station 0+30 should be 451.79
instead of 450.79 indicated on your profile.
3. Please show original ground line on the driveway Profile.
4. After the appropriate consideration of Items 1, 2 & 3 above,
will the driveway still tie in far enough away (minimum 25')
from the building?
411 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 75202 653-7151
Mr. Lloyd James, P.E.
March 18, 1996
Page Two
5. Is the 2% grade at the bottom of the driveWay within the 25'
gravel access?
PLAN VIEW
1. Must show'paving station for the driveway.
2. Must shOw and identify the existing right of way line.
3.. Check the need for the-street inlet right of approximate station
68+35. Also, if needed, shouldn't it be recessed instead of non-
recessed?
4. Their is no obvious reason for the 30' construction easement
along the frontage of the Harrlngton propertY. Is this for
grading, with gravel replacement, to insure drainage of the
area?
5. Do you need to Show a temporary easement on the Farrow property
for construction of the Harrington driveway embankment?
6. Plan view should differentiate between, the temporary
construction easement (gravel frontage) and the 'permanent
easement needed on the sites containing proposed concrete
structures. These sites include the retaining wall at the west
end of the property and also the retaining wall and bridge rip
rap at the east end of the property.
7. The transition (with pavement markers) on the north side;
westbound outside lane is noted and appears to be acceptable.
Finally, and in addition to the above, this is'to remind you of your
need to thoroughly investigate ownership of the existing right of
way. Since this is an eminent domain case a simple assumption,-on
your part,.of prescriptive rights is not sufficient for presentation
of right of Way documents.
As always, you may call me at 653-6423 if you 'have questions
concerning the above.
Sincerely,
Irvin S. Griffin,'~.'E.
Project Enginee~/
ISG/isg
~:~Ken Griffin, City of ~oppell