ST9301A-CS 960202 DALLAS COUNTY 5T q%
~ PUBLICWORKS
Mr. Ken Griffin, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Coppell / ' '~-" , ~ ~l~ ~. II-' ~ ~ -f~'O~-v"- ~
P.O. Box 478 / ~L.~ V~4~ -- /
255 Parkway
Coppell, Texas 75019
Re: Sandy Lake Project 91-838
(Coppell E. City Limits to Dallas City Limit)
Conference of January 25, 1996
Dear Mr. Griffin:
Attached you will find a copy of minutes from the Sandy Lake Co-
Ordination Conference held at the office of Dallas County Public
Works on January 25, 1996. The purpose of the conference was to
discuss and coordinate the activities of various consultant
engineering and public agencies involved with the improvements for
the three different sections of Sandy Lake Road as well as for the
McInnish Park improvements currently being developed and designed
for the City of Carrollton.
Please review the attached minutes carefully and advise Dallas
County, in writing, of any topic that does not meet with your
understanding of the discussions. As always, you may call me at.
653-6423 if you have questions concerning the minutes or any other
feature of this Sandy Lake project.
Sincerely,
Irvin S. Griffin, P. E.
Project Engineer
ISG/isg ~
~tachment: Minutes (6 pages) & Sign In Sheet
CC: Abel Saldana, P.E.
file:IRV:Griff'm5.Kea
411 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 75202 653-7151
MINUTES FROM
SANDY LAKE ROAD PROJECTS
January 25, 1996
AGENCIES/CONSULTANT COORDINATION CONFERENCE
A. City of Coppell Project 91-830: ~ ....
1. Alig-ment:
a. The alignment for this project has now been
approved by the City of Coppell.
2. Right of Way Issues:
a. City of Coppell has now written to the County
requesting that the County consider acquiring right
of way, at City cost, for the 91-830 project.
County has not yet replied because County needs
complete ROW maps from the consultant (see Topic 4a
below).
b. Proposed schedule for consultant providing ROW maps
sufficient for this purpose, is in March 1996.
3. Drainage Issues:
a. Thompson property, i.e., contributions to the 91-
838 bridge project: Also, Ken Griffin was provided
a letter from Dallas County on this subject today.
As a result of reviewing this letter, Ken Griffin
requested that this issue be investigated further.
Abel Saldana has written to Sverdrup for more
information.
b. Any other drainage issues for the 838 project?
Abel indicated he knows of no other drainage issues
at this'time.
4. Preliminary Plan Submittal:
a. County has authorized consultant to prepare and
complete preliminary plans and R-O-W documents.
What is the proposed schedule for submittal to the
County? Consultant's schedule plans for submittal
of final plans is June 1996. Abel Saldana noted
that the consultant's schedule did not show
complete ROW document submittal until final plan
submittal. Abel will instruct consultant to submit
"pre-final" ROW documents in March 1996.
PAGE ONE
B. City of Dallas, Bridge Project 91-838:
1. City of Coppell Right of Way Parcels for bridge project:
a. Harrington and Farrow properties: As a result of
discussions after the conference, that occurred
between representatives of the Consultant, City and
the County the consultant should 'now be able to
finish parcel plats and descriptions (including'
Eminent Domain) for all parcels. Notes from the
discussions follow:
1. It is believed that retaining walls will need
to be provided for one or both sides of
driveway for Harrington. These should be
extended past the normal right of way. The
question is whether or not these can be
provided on a Temporary/Construction easement
(in addition to the "Roadway Easement". Ken
Griffin suggested that we will need a
permanent access easement to include the
driveway and retaining wall.
2. Temporary/Construction . easement or slope
easements Farrow's property? Yes, they are
probably needed.
3. Consultant reports 14% grade on driveway, to
the touch down point. For Eminent Domain
purposes, is this steep grade acceptable? It
was discovered during the meeting that the
consultant's drawings needed to be revised in
order to be in compliance with Coppell's
requests. Actual grade in fact may not be too
steep, with respect to standard practice for
maximum driveway grades.
b. At this time, can we predict a schedule for
acquisition of these two parcels? 90 days from the
submlttal of approved ROW documents according to
Ken Griffin.
c. Carrollton-Farmers Branch I. S. D. Property: Dallas
County Property Division has made substantial
progress in dealing with the I.S.D. School
officials have indicated a willingness to dedicate.
However, they do require compensation for
improvements, particularly steel rail fence. County
must have a Interlocal Agreement with Coppell
before this can be completed. Do we have something
in writing from Ken? Ken Griffin presented a letter
for Bud Beene during the meeting. Irv instructed
Lloyd James to provide for relocation of pipe fence
in'the plans and contract documents. Question
remains as to whether we need specifications'for
this relocation or can it be handled with a general
note. Will definitely need a pay item for the pipe
fail'fence.
PAGE TWO
2. City of Dallas Right of Way Parcels for bridge project:
a. T. U. Electric Company Property: We previously
thought Coppell would be responsible for acquiring
this parcel. Apparently this property is in the
City of Dallas. Sid Hornet has had preliminary
discussions with T. U. Electric officials who
indicated a willingness to dedicate provided that
the access is guaranteed and replacement of fence
and gate is provided.
b. City of Dallas Owned Property: Sid Homer met with
Gay Dehoff and John Seay of the City of Dallas
Property Management Department who said they will
give a letter of permission for our work upon
receipt of final plans for the street construction
on City of Dallas (McInnish Park) property.
Ownership and maintenance of the proposed bridge
~ after construction is complete needs to be
researched. Irv believes it to be the City of
Dallas. City of Dallas needs to respond in writing
accepting responsibility. James Hanvey said he
would take a look at it.
3. City of Carrollton Right of Way Parcels for bridge
project:
a. Tabor Tract: Previously we had thought this would
be signed soon, but there are remaining issues with
getting the right of way finalized. Tim Tumulty
reported that he needed metes and bounds for all
the easements. May need two Y inlets. Need a
decision on drainage. Don Tipton is Tabor's
engineer. Dallas County (Jill) to consult with Don
Tipton.
b. Stiles Tract: Previous report indicated that
the City of Carrollton will soon acquire only
enough right of way for the street project.
Receipt of metes and bounds for easements are
needed before Carrollton can finalise .ROW
acquisition.
4. Right of Way Documents for the bridge project:
Proposed schedule for the consultant providing all the
signed and sealed Right of Way Documents and for staking
all corners in the field is for when? Depends on
resolution of driveway issues. 'Also, sub-consultant
(Halff Associates, Inc.) needs to get property owners
permission to put in survey corners.
PAGE THREE
5. Plans:
"Interim" final plans have now been provided by the
consultant, Charles Gojer and Associates, Inc. Due to the
several right of way issues and an issue with the
drainage from Thompson property several sheets provided
by the consultant were not complete or contained errors.
Dallas County nonetheless submitted these plans to all
the Cites for final comments. Although Dallas County
provided the consultant with comments from a cursory
review, Dallas County needs and requests that all Cities
provide comments promptly. Tim Tumulty responds that he
will probably return the plans in 10 days. Did not get a
schedule from the City of Dallas or from the City of
Coppe11.
6. Hydraulic Data for Line B storm sewer:
The following agenda topic for the 66" diameter storm
sewer was provided by Lloyd James: "Based on the 113.1
cfs at the Carrollton end and using the top of pipe as
beginning tailwater the pipe stays in partial flow. At
the higher tailwater the flap valve will be closed and
there is no flow". There was a consensus to run the
hydraulic gradient on capacity of pipe, peak in the pipe,
and to keep the flap valve in the plans. Line B drains to
the Elm Fork. The pipe will be submerged during floods.
Irv instructed Lloyd to be sure to put "assumptions"
information on the drainage area map or on the drainage
calculatlon sheet.
7. Franchised Utilities:
There are some issues resulting from Tuesday's (January
23, 1996) utility conference. Ail participant's, during
the January 25, 1996 conference were provided a copy of
the County's Interoffice Memo dated January 25, 1996
which documented the "known" issues with utilities.
C. City of Carrollton Park Improvement Project:
1. city county Co-ordination of Park Improvement Work:
a. Proposed schedule for completion of final plans by
city consultant Schrickel Rollins is when? Minutes
do not reflect a specific answer to the specific
question, However, Tim Tumulty reports that this
item is related to the Drainage Swale (2a of the
agenda). He may be able to provide 6-8 week return.
Walter indicates he believes the other issues were
resolved except for floodplain issues.
Additionally, the City of Dallas requires a tree
survey and landscape plan.
PA~E FOU~
b. Az we far enough along to ~~gin a draft of an
interlocal agreement between the City and County
for park work? No. Also, should we indicate that
the County's contractor (at City Cost) is to
construct the portions of park improvements that
R.& B.#1 would not be able to provide, such as
concrete paving, gabion or concrete drainage
structures, etc.? Tim indicated that the City of
Carrollton does in fact, request that Dallas
County's contractor do the construction.
c. Status of question about request to hire a
consultant to perform an engineering analysis of
using RAP material for subgrade. Tim Tumulty
emphasized a desire to obtain this report and also
needs proof that there will be a financial benefit
for the City. Irv Griffin indicated that he will
discuss the need for obtaining more information
with Mike Sharp, Road and Bridge Superintendent.
2. Drainage Swale:
a. Has Schrickel Rollins been able to revise their
design of the swale, i.e., more excavation in the
southern loop, in order to be more compatible with
the previously permitted swale? Apparently the
answer is yes. Walter indicated that he did not
expect any difficulty in obtaining the permit.
b. Has Sverdrup provided Halff with a roadway
schematic? Apparently no. Abel Saldana is
requesting Sverdrup to submit his information as
soon as possible. Walter Skipworth would like to
have roadway profiles which Sverdrup has not yet
provided to help the Corps of Engineers incorporate
in the model.
c. Halff previously reported a schedule which
indicated February 16, 1996 for completion and
approval of all the needed Hydraulic Studies and
Permits from the appropriate governmental agencies.
Does this schedule need to be revised? Within the
week, they are 1-2 weeks behind. There will be a
30-45 day approval time barring any serious
problems.
3. City of Dallas Owned Property; for the Park Improvement
Project: Apparently, The City of Carrollton needs to
obtain City of Dallas permission for the Park Improvement
project on "Dallas Owned Property". Carrollton has now
written to the City of Dallas to start this process.
4. Texas Antiquities; Archeology Permit Application; has
been made. Question about the "SPONSOR". Dallas county is
the correct sponsor if the permit application is for the
bridge construction. If for the swale construction, the
City of Carrollton should be the "SPONSOR".
P~E FIVE
D. City of Carrollton Project 91-839:
1. Schedule for Preliminary Plan Submittal is when? One item
holding up preliminary plan submittal is the hydraulic
gradient. See the following two items.
2. Remaining drainage issues to resolve:
a. Open channel or closed culvert west from IH 35 to
drainage swale? Tim Tumulty reports that with the
drainage area being over 160 acres the channel can
be open.
3. Is March a good date for submittal of Preliminary ROW
documents? Yes, we are 4-$ weeks away from preliminary
submittal.
E. Road and Bridqe District ~1 Topics:
1. Review of interim roadway plans; Mike Sharp is requested
to look at the plans, particularly with respect to
identifying "County" work items.
2. Any other R. & B. topics?
Is RAP suitable for sub-base? See Item Clc. above. County
considers it suitable for detour construction.
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ATTACHED
Minutes completed by Irv Griffin on February 1, 1996
file:Irv:AGENDAS.838
PAGE SIX
DALI.S COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS P-v, PARTMENT
' '" Dal~: ~ ~'~ ~/
.... ~;~ [ ^~ [ ~o~
/