ST8201-CS 890804GINN, INC.
August 4, 1989
Mr. Russell Doyle,
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, TX 75019
Re:
Denton Tap Road Improvements
from Belt Line Road to Sandy Lake Road
Meadow Creek Road
Dear Mr. Doyle:
This letter is in response to your note dated 7/25/89, copy
attached, regarding the improvements made to Meadow Creek Drive
as a part of the Denton Tap Road project. In our July 24, 1989
telephone conversation regarding this issue, I answered the three
questions posed in the attached note. As I recall the inquiry is
based on the fact that a previously existing 20' wide asphalt
roadway which passes between two "commercial tracts" in
connecting a residential subdivision (Northlake Woodlands) to
Denton Tap Road has been replaced with essentially the same width
concrete road as a part of the subject project.
Before one pursues the line of questioning which follows, it is
prudent to consider that Meadow Creek Drive was improved only for
the purpose of meeting the elevated surface of Denton Tap Road
which was raised due to floodplain considerations on Grapevine
Creek.
The primary question raised in our telephone conversation and its
answer is.
Question: Why is the portion of Meadow Creek Drive which was
replaced under this project not a 37' wide concrete street since
it fronts properties which are commercially zoned?
Answer: The existing 20' wide street which primarily serves a
residential subdivision and two minor commercial tracts does not
cross Denton Tap Road and was simply replaced and upgraded to a
21' wide concrete curb and gutter street. Also, in the short
distance between Denton Tap Road and the residential subdivision
there is not ample room to serve the existing uses with a 37'
street and taper back to a 20' wide asphalt street.
17103 Preston Road · Suite 100 · LB 118 · Dallas, Texas 75248 · Phone 214/248-4900
The secondary questions asked were those three listed on your
attached note. Those questions and their answers are as follows:
Question No. 1 - Is this policy?
Answer No. i - Yes. Policy for tying intersecting streets and
roads into C.I.P. thoroughfare projects has been to match the
existing improvements unless they are in conflict with the
provisions of the Thoroughfare Plan or there have been plans made
and submitted by others indicating a pending improvement of the
existing intersecting street.
Question No. 2 - Have we done this consistently in other similar
situations?
Answer No. 2 - To the best of our knowledge, yes.
Question No. 3 - Was this discussed with property Owner?
Answer No. 3 - Yes, the adjacent property Owners had the
opportunity to view the plans and discuss them with us at two
Property Owner's meetings and on several occasions individually.
The dates of the Property Owners meetings were February 16, 1987
and December 17, 1987.
Please call me if you have any questions.
sincerely,
John C. Karlsruher, P.E.
Project Engineer
JCK/dsp
cc: H. Wayne Ginn, P.E.
File 378/260
i?'_TsA., 0+82', ~8'*- LT.
CURB INLET
r.c.-4s~.44 I
~ = $7°51'50"
R · 175.00'
L · 115.65',
T · 60.02
_E OF WATER
MEADOW CREEK'-
PI
116+85.50 ·
"C'D
'494.66
.'49L95
I'CONSTRUCT STREET
,-
P~ 'rEM ~o.~
50' R.Q~/.
,- MEADOW CREEK
N.T. 8.
AL{. REINFORCING B~ SHALL BE NO. 3
TRANSVERSE B/~RS TO BE SPACED ON 2'-0" CT~S
LONGITUraN/~J. BN~S TO BE SPACED CN 2'-¢~' CTRS.
~ 1.13NGITU~N/~. DU~ ,JOINT
(FULL WIDTH PAWlT. IS ALLOWED
WHERE APPROVED BY ENGINEER)
CONSTRUCTION ,JOINT