ST9301A-CS 960125 81MNBY Li~E ROI~ PROJ~.¢T8
January 25, 1996
AGENCIES/CONSULT/~IT COORDINATION CONFERENCE
AGENDA & REPORT
K. City of Coppell Project 91-830:
I. Alignment:
a. Alignment now approved by 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 replied because County needs
complete ROW maps from the consultant.
b. Proposed schedule for consultant providing ROW maps
sufficient for this purpose.
c. Right of Way in Coppell for bridge project; listed
in a subsequent category of this agenda.
3. Drainage Issues:
a. Thompson property,' i.e.~ contributions to the 91-
838 bridge project: Also, Ken Griffin is being
provided a letter on this subject today.
b. Any other drainage issues for the 838 project?
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?
PAGE ONE
B. City of Dallas, Bridge Project 91-838:
1. City of Coppe11 Right of Way Parcels for bridge project:
a. Harrington and Farrow properties: Consultant needs
to finish parcel plats and descriptions based upon
Eminent Domain process and in accordance with the
recent information provided by City of Coppell, Ken
Griffin. Possible questions of Ken Griffin follow:
1. We believe 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".
2. 'Temporary/Construction easement or slope
easement on Farrow's property?
3. Consultant reports % grade on driveway,
to the touch down point. For Eminent Domain
purposes, is this steep grade acceptable?
~i~.~ -i.~.~!i~-~. At this time, the can we predict a schedule for
.~ .... ~ acquisition of these two parcels?
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.
~ ' o~ However, they do require compensation for
/~~=_ _~improvements, particularly steel rail fence. County
~ ~) must have a Interlocal Agreement with Coppell
k/%?J~3~i~,/ before this can be completed. Do we have something
~ in writing from Ken?
2. City of Dallas Right of Way Paroels 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 Horner 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: Cid Horner 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.
PA~E TWO
3. City of Carrollton Right of Way Parcels for bridge
project:
a. Tabor Tract:~ Previously we had reported that this
(nursery parcel) would have been signed by December
15, 1995. Jill Brim recently had a discussion with
an attorney (Brenda McDonald) at the City of
Carrollton who indicated that there were remaining
issues with getting the right of way finalized. Is
it now final, or what is the current schedule for
acquisition?
b. Stiles Tract: Previous report indicated that
the City of Carrollton will soon acquire only
enough right of way for the street project.
Eventually the City will acquire the entire
tract for park purposes. Per Kimley-Horn's
letter can Carrollton accept the over-sized
ROW and easement takings? Did Tim Tumulty
receive Right of Way documents for this tract?
What is the current schedule for acquisition
of this parcel?
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?
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.
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".
PAGE THREE
?. Franchised Utilities:
There were some issues resulting from Tuesday,s (January
23, 1996) utility conference. The most current
information is contained in the County's Interoffice Memo
dated January 25, 1996 (copy provided).
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?
b. Are we far enough along to begin a draft of an
interlocal agreement between the City and County
for park work? Also, should we indicate that the
County's contractor (at City Cost) is to construct
the portions of park improvements that R.& B.#I
would not be able to provide, such as concrete
paving, gabion or concrete drainage structures,
etc.?
c. Status of question about request to hire a
consultant to perform an engineering analysis of
using RAP material for subgrade.
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?
b. Any more information needed for the 404 permit?
c. Has Sverdrup provided Halff with a roadway
schematic?
d. Halff previously reported a schedule which
indicated February 16, 1996 for completion and
approval of all the needed Hydraulic Studies and
Permits from t~e appropriate governmental agencies.
Does this schedUle need to be revised?
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.
PAGE FOUR
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".
D. City of Carrollton Project 91-839:
1. Schedule for Preliminary Plan Submittal is when?
2. Remaining drainage issues to resolve:.
a. Open channel or closed culvert west from IH 35 to
drainage swale?
3. Is March a good date for submittal of preliminary ROW
documents?
E. Road and Bridge 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?
file: Irv: AGENDAS. 838
PAGE FIVE
DALL ; COUNTY PUBLIC WORK~ E ?ARTM~NT
M~g:~,"~
NAME [ AGENCY [ PHoNE~