ST9301A-CS 960318 (2)To: Ken Griffin
From: Irvin Griffin
3/18/1996 653905?
05-18-1996 ~]2: 21PM FROI ~- N1LLASCOCOMMCT TO '~ 950455?0 P. ~1
~IMI~ ~~
..o~: ~~': ~ P o~
SE~ BY: ~ S. Gfi~+_P.E.~ ~oj~ E~r
~~ ~BR OF PAG~ ~CLUD~G CO~ S~ ~ ~
COMMENTS:~ ·
4 ~ 1 ~lm Stree~ Dallas, Texas 75202 653-7151
15-18-1996 0~: ~PM FROM~_~ N1LLASCOCOMMCT TO 950~3570 P. 0~
DALLAS COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS
Ma:~ch 18, 1996
C}~h.' Lloyd James, P.E., 'Project Manager Lrles Gojer and Associates, Inc.
Co~sulting ~ngineers
11J15 Forest Central Dr. $204
DaLlas, Texas 75243
Re Sandy Lake Project 91-838
(Coppell E. City Limits to Dallas city Limit)
Driveway and Right of way for the Harr~ngton Pr~pert~
De~r Mr. James=
Re~erenoe is made to your submittal dated March 8, 1996 of a plan and
pr.)file view fOr the proposed driveway at the Harrington (~ait Shop)
pr)perry. 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.
Al~o, we havelquestions and we have anticipated'questions that might
be a~ked 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 as follows:
DRIVEWAY PROFILE
1. YOU have provided an elevation of 452.85 for to~of curb at
driveway station 0+03. Using your previous plan submittal I
determined an elevation of 4~2.01 for this point. I realize that
there were ~ome errors~ (see my letter to you dated January 12,
1996) for the profile gradient on the pre~ious submittal but ·
did not know the differences were as great, ~.e., 0.84'. Please
provide Dallas CoUnty With a copy of the correct plan sheet with
corrected gradients. ~e will then be better able to check the
information you have ~rovided.
2 Irrespective of comment number 1 and using the aforementioned
elevation of 452.85, 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 Stems 1, 2 & 3 above,
will the driveway still tie in far enough away (minimum 25')'
from the building?
411 rn Street Dallas, Texas 75202 653-7151
03-18-1996 02:22PM FROM~N1LLASCOCOMMCT TO 93043570 P.03
Mx. Lloyd James, P.E.
Ma~ch 18, 1996
Pa~e Two
5. Is the 2% grade at the bottom of the driveway within the 25'
gravel access?
PLAN VIEW
I Must show paving station for the driveway.
2. Must show and identify:the existing right, of way line.
3. Check the need for the ~treet inlet right of approximate station
68+35. Also, if needed,, shouldn't it be recessed instead of non-
recessed?
4. The is no obvious reason for the 30' construction easement along
the frontage of the Harrington property~ Is this for gradthg,
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 an~ also the retainin~ 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 ~imple assumption, on
yc~r part, of prescriptive rights is not ~ufficient for presentation
o5 right of way documents.
As always, you' may cai1 me at 653-6423 if you have questions
ccncerning the above.
Si ncerely,/~ ~ .
~in $. P.E.
Griffin,
Project Engineer
ISG/isg
CC: Ken Griffin, city of coppell ~=v:~n~
03-18-1996 O~:~SPM ~ROM -~ILLASCOCOMMCT TO 950~J570 P.04
CHARLES GOJER and ASSOC.
[. ~ ........ 1_1615 Forest Central Dr:. #302. Dallas, Texas 75243 CONSULTING
~rlnsmittal Letter ............
~ Date~
Ge ltlemen:
W~ are sending you,]~'hereWith n-lunder separate cover, the folloWing items'
~ Prints [~) Originals FI Shop drawings ~ Copy of letter
No. of Sheet'
,3 ol:)ies ...... N°. Description ....
Th above mentioned are sent to you ~
For ~r distribution As per your uesf
~ Fo~ Your approval ~ For job use
, For your review ~ For coordma~Oh ..... ~.~.~,r~,.~ .....
For your information ~ For your file
03-18-1996 02: ~3PM FROM NiLL~SCOCOMMCT TO 930435?0 P. 05
~ * ~o II · '"-.~'
~ ~ .....
~s~. ~ ~,.. ~ L, :"
0J-18-1996 0~: ~dPM ~ROM N1LLASCOCOMMCT TO 930~5570 P.06
.. ~~ o,*-~., o~ -t
, I .. _
~ ~ + . ,.
.--.. L, _w-. ISSUED .[0~ INTERIM RENEW
'~" THIS DOCUMENT .IS NO~ T.~
.... '- -- ~ BE .USED FOR CONSTRUCTION,
. . ~ .... B~DDING .OR PERMIT P~POSES.
.... !_~ _ ~
; TEXAS REG'N. ~ 19024
TOTAL P.
DALLAS COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS
February 14, 1996
Mr. Ken Griffin, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
255 Parkway
Coppell, Texas 75019
Re: Sandy Lake Project 91-838
(Coppell E. City Limits to Dallas City Limit)
Your letter dated February 12, 1996
Dear Mr. Griffin:
We have received and reviewed your letter dated February 12, 1996
concerning a review of the "Interim" Final Plans for this Sandy
Lake Road project. We appreciate and agree with your comments and
will comply with ~ your requests indicated in said letter.
However, your assistance on another matter is requested.
Enclosed is a copy of an eight page letter we wrote the consultant
for the project, Charles Gojer and Associates Inc., dated February
13, 1996. Your review of the entire letter would be unnecessary and
time consuming. We do, however, ask that you refer to the bottom of
page seven, specifically the section identified as OUR REPLY TO THE
SECOND SENTENCE. In our reply we have documented a number of
guidelines to the consultant for developing new geometrics of Sandy
Lake Road west of the bridge.
Please examine these guidelines (page seven and page eight)
carefully and call me at 653-6423 if you have questions or wish to
advise me of errors I may have made.
Sincerely,
Irvin S. Griffin,
Project Engineer
achment: Letter to Charles Gojer and Associates Inc. · dated February 13, 1996
CC: Abel Saldana, P.E.
file:~V:Griffm6.Ken
411Elm Street Dallas, Texas75202 653-7151
DALLAS CG dNTY
PUBLIC WORKS
February 13, 1996
Lloyd James, P.E., Project Manager
Charles Gojer and Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
11615 Forest Central Dr. ~204
Dallas, Texas 75243
Re: Sandy Lake Project 91-838
(Coppell E. City Limits to Dallas City Limit)
Your letter dated J&nuar~ 31, 1996
Dear Mr. James:
We have received and reviewed your letter dated January 31, 1996
concerning your reply to review comments and outstanding design
issues. For ease of reference we are commenting on each category
indicated in your letter i.e., Interim Submittal, Pavement Grades,
Final Plans, Line B Storm Sewer etc. Our comments follow.
January 8 - Interim Submittal
Noted; no remaining issue.
Pavement Grades
Noted; your explanation as to why the plans contained paving grade
errors is acknowledged; hopefully there will be no remaining issue
with the' paving grades.
Final Plans
You have asked for a clarification on several matters. Again we will
comment int he same order and format'in your January 31, 1996 letter
as follows:
General Notes=
Relative to General Note No. 2 you are correct that this is not'the
first project in which a contractor has been required to interface
with a Road and Bridge District. For your information and use we are
providing, under separate cover, a Special Provision and other
portions of contract documents from similar projects.
Line B Storm Sewer Easement:
You have ·asked whether an easement be required for this line. I have
checked with our Right of Way department relative to this question.
Since this storm sewer line is on City of Dallas owned property we
feel that a separate easement document is not needed. Therefore, we
are.not requiring that you prepare easement documents for the line.
411Elm Street Dallas, Texas75202 653-7151
Mr. Lloyd James, P.E..
February 13, 1996 '
~age Two
Line B Storm Sewer Hydraulic Data:
Hydraulic data is required for storm sewer lines. However, since
the line in question, i.e., Line B will not be functional during
floods you are correct in saying that a hydraulic grade line based on
design flow (during floods) has no meaning. We do not feel that this
matter requires any more clarification.
Line B Storm Sewer Alignment:
The alignment of this storm sewer line is acceptable. On another
matter, your re-design of the horizontal laterals (instead of vertical
laterals) will be acceptable provided you specify cement stabilized
backfill for grades steeper' than 10%. We feel that there are no
remaining issues with the storm sewer alignment.
Inlet Laterals:
Our comment on the review letter was "why not match crowns
(typical)", referring to laterals connecting to the centerline of the
main? You stated that "most agencies, including Dallas County, prefer
to match centerline". We simply do not agree, we prefer to match
crowns. Recently, a few of the cities who utilize TV inspection of
storm sewer lines now prefer to match flow lines instead of matching
crowns, as had been their preference until they started utilizing TV
inspections. Simply match crowns unless there is a specific and
necessary reason not to do so. We feel that there is no remaining
issue with this matter.
Transition Striping:
You indicated that "you do not understand this comment- on (Sheet
P-l). Actually, it was a question "Are we doing striping of
transition?-. We should have made an instruction. The edge lines, lane
lines, etc., for the asphalt transition from the existing two lane
undivided asphalt road to the divided fOur lane concrete street must
be delineated.
Harrington Bait Shop:
We will have a number of comments to the statements contained in Page
three of your January 31, 1996 letter. For ease of reference, I will
separate our reply based on the sequence indicated on page three of
your January 31, 1996 letter.
Mr. Lloyd James, P.E.
February 13, 1996
~age Three
First Paragraph
In your first paragraph you have stated that "As an after thought,
Charles Gojer and Associates was asked by the County if we would mind
including the asphalt transition at the beginning of the project into
our plans since the bridge project would probably be built first. In
an attempt to be accommodating we agreed."
OUR REPLY: We appreciate your attempt 'to be accommodating. Your
statement however, implies that your company originally did not
anticipate the need for an asphalt transition. These needed
transitions have routinely been contemplated and provided for by
consultant engineering firms on many other county projects.
Continuing in your first paragraph you indicate "At the direction of
Dallas County plans were prepared for what appeared to be a logical
solution to the Harrington access problem.,,
OUR REPLY: At the time I first reviewed your plans in May 1995, I also
felt that your proposal for Harrington,s access was logical. However,
my opinion was based on information indicated on the plans, i.e.,
proposed driveway was to the property, described on the plans as being
owned by Harrington. On November 9, 1995, I participated in a meeting
between James Harrington and Ken Griffin. It was during this meeting
that I first realized that the plan identification of ownership was
incorrect, i.e., the plans were showing Harrington as the owner of
property actually owned by Floyd Farrow. See page two 'of the letter
to Charles Gojer dated November 13, 1995, in which I indicated this
fact to your company. We note that the plans your company provided on
Dallas County on December 15, 1995, still showed the same incorrect
ownership. Therefore, my belief tn agreeing with.the description of
"logical access" was based upon Incorrect information.
n ~om~let{ng our repl~ to your first paragraph relat'in~ to th~
~?~0~ ~it S~op. yo~ %gd~c~ "CoPpell disagreed with the'propose~
oauu~on aha comp~alne~ =ha= =nls was never properly transmitted to '
them by Dallas County, although our files show that a complete set of
original drawings were given to the County for submission of prints
to Coppell."
OUR REPLY: I believe the significant issue is not that the driveway
has to be changed because someone did not get plans sooner. The issue
is that the driveway plans must be changed due to the fact the'
relocated driveway was shown as being constructed on Harrington,s
property when in fact, the plans were incorrect. Our reply is further
broken down as follows:
a. I do remember a discussion from May of 1995 that agrees with
your statement, i.e., drawings were provided by Gojer to the
County to give to Coppell. However, we have been unable to
verify or confirm that the City of Coppell was or was not
Mr. Lloyd James, P.E.
February 13, 1996
page Four
provided plans in May 1995. Ken Griffin indicate that his office
did not receive plans until we again submitted them to him in
October 1995.
b. In letter to your firm dated May 30, 1995, we .indicated a need
for right of way documents. We did not receive any documents
till October 1995. Therefore, for a period of over four months
I had no idea that the ownership was incorrectly identified.
Second Paragraph
In your second paragraph you have stated that as a result of a
schematic I sent you on November 13, 1995 "We totally redesigned the
approach to the bridge in time for the requested December 8
submittal."
OUR REPLY: We are unable to agree with your statement about "totally
redesigned". See letter and plan mark-ups to your firm dated January
12, 1996. Among others, we had comments and markups relative to the
plan and the typical section for the approach to the bridge. In
addition, we marked on the plans that the ownership for the Farrow
property was incorrect. At that time, the relocated access road
(serving as Harrington's. driveway), design of which had never been
changed was incorrect. Again, see page two of the letter to Charles
Gojer dated November 13, 1995, in which I indicated this fact, i.e.,
incorrect ownership, to your company.
Continuing in your second paragraph you also stated that "The matter
of access to the bait shop had still not been determined by Coppell."
OUR REPLY: Your company is responsible to design the driveway. We have
asked you for a design based on criteria suggested by Coppell.
Actually, the matter can not be determined until you provide an
acceptable design for the Harrington driveway.
THIRD PARAGRAPH
At the beginning of your third paragraph you mentioned a 90%
Submittal.
OUR REPLY: By letter dated December 27, 1995 we indicated that your
invoice for 95% payment was being rejected. We subsequently agreed to
process an invoice for 85%. Eighty-five (85) percent is the
appropriate percentage to use.
Continuing in your third paragraph you state, referring to myself,
that "At your request a profile was drawn from the latest roadway
plans to illustrate the proposed grades".
OUR REPLY: The latest roadway plans do not indicate or reflect an
acceptable re-design of the approach to the bridge that you mentioned
in paragraph two. Further, your design of the driveway was not based
on the correct curb location.
Mr. Lloyd James, P.E.
February 13, 1996
page Five
FOURTH PARAGRAPH
In your fourth paragraph you state that "At the January 25, 1996 co-
ordination meeting, we, for the first time, were informed that the
City of Coppe11 was:". Again we will follow the format in responding
to the four statements (a, b, c. and d) as follows:
a. You stated "that the roadway be reconfigured different".
OUR REPLY: Your company was informed of this on November 13,
1995.
b. You stated, apparently referencing to the City of Coppell
"intending for the sketch to be taken literally,,
OUR REPLY: We agree with your statement.
c. You stated, "placing the responsibility of satisfying Harrington
with a driveway design on the consultant.,,
OUR REPLY: We do not agree with your statement. Satisfying
Harrington, would be through negotiations and or court hearings
with Harrington and the City of Coppell. It is not your
responsibility. However, your company is responsible to provide
an acceptable driveway design. If you feel you can not, we
require that you document and report your reasoning in writing
promptly.
d. You statement apparently referring to Ken Griffin "asking us to
readjust, storm sewer inlets to facilitate the Harrington
driveway design".
OUR REPLY: If necessary, to avoid running water down a driveway
you are instructed to provide an inlet to catch street water. I
recall making a statement to this effect to you during the
January 25, 1996 conference.
Median Buttons on the Bridge:
We have reviewed your explanation as to why 4 inch diameter
reflectorized type I-C traffic buttons were used in pairs to delineate
and mark the right edge of the pavement in lieu of the requested 8"
buttons for pavement marking purposes. We find your justification to
be acceptable, i.e., the 4 inch buttons may be utilized for the
mentioned application..There should be no remaining issues with this
matter.
Storm Sewer Line "A" Revision
We have reviewed your request to eliminate the double pipe outfall.
Based upon the information you have provided, your request is Dot
approved. The double pipe outfall is needed. There should be no
remaining issue with this matter.
Mr. Lloyd James, P.E.
February 13, 1996
~age Six
~idew&lks~
Sidewalks are required on both sides from the beginning of the project
to the Park Access Roads. There should be no remaining issues with
this matter.
Fenoes
See letter to you~dated February 2, 1996 which accompanied minutes
from the January 25, 1996 conference. As I indicated to you
previously, you are instructed to provide for the removal and erection
of fences for the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School
District and TU Electric. There should be no remaining issues with
this matter.
Standard Details
We agree with your statement to use City of Dallas Standard
Construction Details or TxDOT Standards where applicable. However, you
should remember that your company is responsible for furnishing all
details needed for the County paving, drainage and bridge project.
There are no known issues with this matter.
Conclusions and Recommendations
We will have a number of comments to the statements contained in page
five of your January 31, 1996 letter. For ease of reference, I will
separate our reply based on the same seqUence indicated in said
January 31, 1996 letter.
First ParagraPh
In your first paragraph you mentioned preparing exhibits and studying
different alternatives. In the
.... ~ase of the Harrington driveway this
may be necessary, we sugges= =ha= you read your contra~t with Dallas
County in its entirety but more particularly as it relates to
preliminary engineering investigation, preliminary study and report.
The contract states, in part, that sufficient preliminary engineering
investigation and consideration must be given to the effect on
adjacent properties (development) due to the additional ROW, as well
as the proposed roadway improvements, including proposed curb grade,
fill and cut slopes and/or retaining walls. Also, the contract
requires that a preliminary engineering study and report concurrent
and consistent with the right of way study for the project in
sufficient detail to indicate clearly the problems involved and the
alternate solutionsavailable to the County becompleted. With respect
to the Harrington access, we do not feel that this has been
accomplished. What the County and the City of Coppell have studied has
been based upon information that was not correct.
~r. Lloyd ~amee, P.E.'.
February 13, 1996
~age Seven
Second Paragraph
In your second paragraph you mentioned that you ara not requesting
additional fees for what you consider additional services. We
appreciate your statement, but must advise you that had you made such
request it would have been rejected.
Third Paragraph
In your third paragraph you document a request regarding three
different subjects. We will follow the format in responding to the
three requests (1, 2 and 3} as follows:
1. Regarding your suggestion relative to "Addressing the issues
raised in this letter as soon as possible."
OUR REPLY: We feel this letter accomplishes 1:hat purpose.
2. You mention "Deciding if a redesign of the roadway leading onto
the bridge is in the best interest of the project. If so, issue
firm guidelines for the new geometrics."
OUR REPLY TO THE FIRST SENTENCE: We are of the opinion that we
have not yet had a acceptable design to look at, see pages 3, 4
and 5 of this letter for more information. Also, we feel that
geometries, different from that indicated on your previous plane
'are needed and required.
OUR REPLY TO THE SECOND SENTENCE: Regarding your request for
guidelines we will repeat discussions from the January 25, 1996
coordination meeting. Using your plan sheets dated December 15,
1995, for dimensional reference we will docuuent the 'general
guidelines aa follows:
a. On t~e north s_ld~, from station 66+50 to 69'+10 left, the
dimension of ~e~, frum centerline to right of way remains
the same.
· On' the AsOuth side, from station 66+50 to 69+10 right, the
dimension of SS, from centerline to right of way line
changes to 45'.
c. Any retaining wall needed along the south side parallel to
th.e roadway will be just inside the 45' right of way
F&oe of ~nside cur~ eastbound at ~arrington's will be three
foot right of centerline,
Meaien between 66+50 t~ 69+10 will. vary in width depending
upon the curb tranaiticu wear of the ~arrington Tract.
Mr. Lloyd James, P.E.
February 13, 1996
Page Eight
~. A left turn opening (for emergency vehicles) will be
provided westbound at approximate station 65+80.
g. Concerning grade on Harrington's driveway you might recall
a meeting specifically concerning the subject. This'meeting
occurred after the January 25, 1996 coordination meeting.
I asked your company to draw two profiles for the driveway,
one with the City of Coppell's requests and one using City
of Dallas usual criteria. We feel that this request is not
unreasonable and is in keeping with the requirements of
your contract with Dallas County, specifically the section
which discusses the Preliminary Engineering StUdy and
Report. '
3. You mention "placing the responsibility of satisfying the
Harrington issue on Coppell',
IOUR REPLY: It is not your responsibility to satisfy Harrington.
It is your company's responsibility however, to provide an
Cc~%{~ acceptable driveway design, street design and right of way
documents.
Finally, we are also anxious to complete your design contract and
commence construction of the project. We feel that the information
provided you in this letter will be of value in your efforts toward
completing the plans for this project.
'However, as indicated to you previously, the priority, at this time,
is the prompt completion of right of way documents and staking the
corners in the field. As always you may call me at 653-6423 if you
have questions concerning the above or any other feature of the
project. '
Sincerely,
Irvin S. Griffin, p. E.
Project Engineer
ISG/isg
~:~V: 838(]oj~'.~1