ST9301A-CS 951010 (2) SANDY LAKE ROAD PROJECTS
MEETING NOTES
OCTOBER 10, 1995
After opening remarks by Alberta Blair-Robinson, Irv Griffin
co-ordinated issue discussions using an agenda of prepared
topics. For ease of reference comments and minutes will follow
the agenda format as follows:
CITY OF COPPELL PROJECT 91-830
1. Alignment Issues: Ken Griffin indicated that the City Council
has a pending resolution concerning where the City wants the
alignment. This is scheduled for vote during the 10/24/95 City
Council meeting. If approved, the resolution should enable
plan (paving and drainage) and right of way document
preparation to proceed.
2. Bike Lane Issue: Ken Griffin has prepared a memo to his City
Manager relative to the County's letter of 8-31-95. Dallas
County letter attached a letter from Lloyd James relative to
safety concerns involved with a bike lane on only one side of
the bridge. Ken has also indicated a suggested interim
solution. Additionally, Ken mentioned a barrier wall between
bike lane and roadway. His concern (barrier wall) is similar
to a question Irv Griffin made of the consultant with mark up
plans of May 30, 1995. Although the issue is not yet resolved,
we are optimistic that this issue will soon be resolved to the
satisfaction of all parties.
3. Drainage Issues: Coppell has received nothing newer than the
submittal dated March 1994.
4. Horizontal Control: Consultant stated that issue has been
resolved. Abel Saldana to follow through.
5. Preliminary Estimate: Has now been provided by consultant.
6. Preliminary Plan Submittal: Date for submittal dependant upon
Topic #1 above.
7. Right of Way Issues: Ken Griffin has a ROW issue concerning
parking for the Bait Shop. This may or may not still be an
issue because the County recently provided instructions to the
consultant that may negate this issue.
Also, Ken indicated that the City will write a letter to
Dallas County requesting consideration for County to acquire
ROW at City expense.
8. Preliminary Plan Submittal: Consultant unable to designate a
submittal date at this time due to Topic #1 above.
SANDY LAKE ROAD PROJECTS
MEETING NOTES
OCTOBER 10v 1995
Page Two
9. Coppe11 review of Bridge Project Plans: (new topic not on
meeting agenda). Ken Griffin is providing a letter today
which results from his review of County plans for the bridge
project. Ken has several concerns, which apparently could have
been resolved earlier and easier if the County had
communicated better with Coppell. Irv Griffin needs to be sure
that Coppell is involved with and receives copies of all
submittals and correspondence that involves the portion of the
project at or west of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River.
CITY OF DALLAS PROJECT 91-838
1. ROW Issues:
a. West End of Project: Ken Griffin has a ROW issue
concerning parking for the Bait Shop. This may or may not
still be an issue because the County recently provided
instructions to the consultant that may handle Ken's
concern.
b. East End of Project: Discussions related to a
possibility for obtaining a "right of entry" from the
Stiles and the Nursery property. In regards to the
nursery property Selas Camarillo however, expressed
concern that the County would not want to deal with an
individual property owner when the City has already
started negotiations with that property owner. Tim
Tumulty asked if the County was saying "No" to his
request that the County consider acquiring ROW at City
expense.
After lengthy discussion, the matter was tabled without
resolution pending resolution of individual issues to be
coordinated by Alberta Blair-Robinson.
2. Survey Control: Coordination currently underway between the
consultant and Dallas County.
3. Construction Estimate: Has now been provided by consultant.
4. Drainage Information from adjacent projects:
a. East End of Project: Consultant, Charles Gojer has
obtained all needed drainage information from the project
abutting on the east. County is currently obtaining
survey data for a discharge line to the Elm Fork. Irv
indicated information would be provided consultant on
October 13, 1995.
SANDY LAKE ROAD PROJECTS
MEETING NOTES
OCTOBER 10, 1995
Page Three
b. West End of Project: Only preliminary information from
west abutting project information has been provided. For
purposes of the bridge project Lloyd James suggested
over-sizing the line from the west. Irv indicated
concurrence with this suggestion.
5. Invoice: Will be processed after verification of progress on
plans.
6. Contract Documents: Consultant given disk with current
version using WP51 format.
7. Next plan submittal: Lloyd James indicated that the storm
sewer route survey data, City of Coppell's ROW concerns and
review comments are influencing the schedule for the next plan
submittal.
CITY OF CARROLLTON PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
1. Drainage Swale: Gojer now has the swale information relating
to park improvements, needed to finish Sandy Lake Road plans.
2. Status of Geoteohnical Report: Geotechnical report now in
County office. Irv received October 11, 1995.
3. Corps of Engineers: Original model did not include the City
of Carrollton park improvements. Abel Saldana and Walter
Skipwith (not present) to follow through on this.
CITY OF CARROLLTON PROJECT 91-839
1. ROW Ac~[uisition: County considering City's request to acquire
at City cost. Answer by County not yet provided. Numerous
other ROW issues concerning Stiles, Nursery and Amusement
Park.
2. Drainage Information: To be submitted by consultant with
paving and drainage plans.
3. Preliminary Paving and drainage Plans: Street may need to be
higher, i.e., 447.00 minimum elev. depending on hydraulic
profile.
4. Right of Way Documents: Estimated to take 4 to 6 weeks
(including slope easements) after preliminary paving and
drainage plans are approved.
SANDY L~KE ROAD PROJECTS
MEETING NOTES
OCTOBER 10, 1995
Page Four
RO~D AND BRIDGE DISTRICT NO. I
1. Detour Construction: County has or can obtain materials for
this work.
2. Park Entrance: County has continuous stockpile which may be
used for this work. Consideration needs to be given regarding
building the detour to the ultimate alignment and grade
(finish subgrade elevation) and to the route of a temporary
connector to McInnish Park that can be utilized during street
construction.
3. Status of Geotechnical Report= This was delivered to Mike
Sharp on October 12, 1995.
Next meeting scheduled for November 14, 1995 at 2:00 PM.
Attachment: Sign In Sheet from the 10-10-95 Conference
minutes compiled by Irv Griffin
on October 12, 1995: file:Minutes2.838
NAME COMPANY PHONE NUMBER
SANDY LAKE ROAD PROJECTS
October 10, 1995
A. City of Coppell Project 91-830:
1. Alignment Issues:
~/~ Is there still an issue about exactly where the City
wants the alignment?
' ,O~J~v3~ 2. Bike Lane Issues:
~.~.~3~ ~ Also, has City responded to 8-31-95 letter from County
~ // which attached concerns by consultant for the bridge
project? ~ O
3. Drainage Issues:
Have we now provided drainage plans, even if only "very
preliminary" to Ken Gr~fSin with the City of Coppell?
4. Horizontal Control:
Is there still a question abo~ut field control for this
project? ~ %~~~
5. Preliminary Estimate:
This information has now been ~~e%~allas County
by the consultant. ~2~ O~
6. Preliminary Plan Submittal:
Does the date for submittal depend on City resolution of
desired alignments?
7. Right of Way Issues:
Has City of Coppell now written to the County requesting
that the County consider acauiring right of way, at City
' cost?
v~OJC o~°~ ~ 8. Preliminary ~lan Submittal:
~j~/~3~''9~ ~ Are we ready to designate a submittal date for
preliminary plans?
'
· B. City of Dallas, BridGe Project 91-838:
1. ROW Issues:
a. Issues at west end of project have been resolved.
The proposed date for submitting plats and deeds is
6 when?
\~~~, b. Issues at east end of project. We are unable to
change the plans to avoid the need for ROW from
Stiles and the Nursery property. The most urgent
question to resolve is; should we obtain a "right
of entry", in the very near future from each of the
two properties, for purposes of building this
bridge project's permanent pavement and the
temporary asphalt transitions using the preliminary
ROW map provided by Kimley Horn? The second
question is who (City of Carrollton) should obtain
these "Right of Entry's".?
2. Survey Control:
Previously, the consultant needed survey field data (from
Dallas County) in order to design the storm sewer from
b Kimley Horns project that will discharge into the Elm
Fork. Dallas County, however, needed centerline control
~O ~ in order to obtain the field data. The control has now
~ been provided by the consultant. The County is currently
obtaining the performing the field work and is scheduled
to provide the data to the consultant by the end of this
week.
3. Construction Estimate:
This information has now been provided by the consultant.
Some changes may be recom~ended. Irv will get these to
consultant by end of this week.
4. Drainage Information f~om adjacen% projects:
Does Go jar O not~w % ~a~ve~-U~a 1 P ~ ~ ~
'~ 1 the needed drainage~Q~
information (t, pipe size and flow line elevations) from
consultants at both ends of the project?
5. Invoice
Regarding Gojer's invoice recently received, Irv needs to
see current plans before verification of payment.
6. Contract Documents.
High Density Disk with new contract documents prepared in
Wordperfect 5.1 is being provided the consultant this
date.
7. Next plan submittal:
Are we able to determine a schedule date for submitting
plans "adequate for utility relocations,,, also for final
plans and contract documents?
2
C. City of Carrollton Park Improvement Proj,~ect:
1. Drainage Swale:
3~>~ ~ .... Preliminary plans have now been provided. Does Gojer now
~ ~ have enough information (relative to park improvements)
3 ~ ~ ~ to finish Sandy Lake Road plans? Also, what is the status
,\~/~,~'~ of checking and providing comments back to Schrickel
~, ~ Rollins?
2. Status of Geotechnical work:
Submittal letter with preliminary plans that was provided
to Dallas County indicated report was attached. The
report, however was not received.
D. City of Carrollton Project 91-839:
~ ~ 1. Right of Way Acquisition;
a. City has requested Dallas County consider
O - acquisition (at city cost); any report on status of
! ~ reply?
~ b. See Topic B.l.b. concerning Stiles and Nursery
properties.
c. Any issues with Amusement Park Property?
2. Drainage information:
Status or proposed schedule for submitting drainage
design information.
3. Preliminary Paving and Drainage Plans:
Proposed date for next plan submittal is when?
E. Road and Bridae District #1 Topics:
1. Detour construction:
County has or can obtain materials for this work.
2. Possible temporary access for Park entrance:
County has or can obtain materials for this work. Also,
we need to build to ultimate grade and alignment if
possible.