ST9301-CS010206February 6, 2001
John Mears, P.E.
Dallas County Public Works
511 Elm Street 4th Floor
Dallas, Texas 75202
Sandy Lake Road Project ST 93-01 (M~Arthur Btvd. to ~t city limits)
Dallas County Project # 91-830
Dear Mr. Mears:
This letter is written in response to your October 19, 2000 letter in which you requested
clarification on several items.
Should road signs be included with the contract?
The latest set of construction plans that I have dated March 15, 1996 do not include a
schedule of road construction signs. However, we typically include new signs with the
bid.
You asked about slope encroachments and do we want to consider retaining walls.
We would like to consider retaining walls in areas where trees could be salvaged. It looks
like on the north side between Sta. 38+50 and 40+50 that there could be some benefit to
utilization of retaining walls. You also inquired about using retaining walls near the
water site at 45+00. That is a City of Coppell water site which more than likely will be
abandoned within the next twelve to eighteen months. Therefore, we would prefer
inexpensive sloping around that site. The construction plans show that the sloping will
take place through the structures. That obviously cannot take place and sloping should be
around the structures.
Comment concerning the drainage around Riverchase Drive and Riverview Drive.
I am unsure whether or not the bridge storm sewer stub-out was intended to pick up flow
from Riverview that currently goes across Sandy Lake in the 30" RCP's. If possible, we
would prefer that the water be picked up by proposed drainage systems. With this letter I
am including Sheets 9, 10 and 12 from the Riverview construction plans which detail the
drainage in this general area. Those three sheets should clear-up question 3 and 4.
PARKWAY 1['P.O.BOX 478 1IrCOPPELL TX 75Ol9 1IrTEL 972/462 0022. 1IrFAX 972/304 3673
Additionally, I have the following comments.
Can the two 30" RCP's near Sta. 52+00 be connected and a wye inlet installed to pickup
any drainage that might be in ditches adjacent to the roadway?
Please define what the flow is to the 54" RCP. The only area shown on the plans going to
the 54" RCP at Sm. 52+00 is Drainage Area 1-14, which is only 10 cfs. Construction
plans show 52.8 cfs in the 54" RCP. It is quite possible the 54" was proposed to
accommodate Drainage Areas A2-A7 on the Riverview construction plans. Irregardless,
it appears the drainage needs to be reviewed between Riverchase and Riverview in light
of existing improvements taking place since 1996.
If there is a more current set of construction plans we would appreciate a copy being forwarded
to us. Also, it is our intent to sell bond monies for this project construction in August 2001 and
hopefully begin construction on the project by the end of 2001.
If you should have any questions or need additional information please feel free to contact me at
your convenience.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E.
Director of Engineering and Public Works
DALLAS COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS
October 19, 2000
Mr. Ken Griffin, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Coppell
P. O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Re: Sandy Lake Road Project No. 91-830
(MacArthur Boulevard to Coppell East City Limits)
F~nal Plans
In an effort to finalize the construction plans for the above project the/6 are several items which require the
City's input:
1. There is a summary of road signs which are included in tl~ plans and e~imated quantities. Does the
City want to include road signs with the road construction/contract or perform that work on their own?
~ ~ ~'-t..~ 2. There are several locations of.significant ...... slope encroa, roa~m~ ontores~enfialent onto residential lots near Stas. 39+00. -
_., -~ ~--.~ 40+00 and a Dallas Water Utilities site near Sra. ,~ *~T~u~. ~to_we-wantmconslder retamm~walls m
.~ ff~o -r~v any of these areas to reduce the construction impact? ~ t~. ~ t,o~L, =~al:) ~
3. Please review the areas of pipe inflow/outflow and ditches/grading around Riverchase Drive and
~,, ~ '50 ,, Riverview Drive. Existing topography is dictating this design and it is changing all the time with
filling on adjacent property. Do we just want to address the specifics of parkway grading and drainage
structures at the time of construction for actual conditions? We have instructed the Consultant that
we would rather see type 'qf" inlets for inflows instead of type "C" headwalls where possible.
,4.
The drainage design near Riverview Drive has an outfaU to the north in an existing ditch which is
where the flow is currently routed. Is this acceptable to the City? The property owner to the north
~ said that someone told them the drainage was to be rot~ toward the bridge. Was the bridge storm
sewer stub-out intended to pick up this flow?
Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to c~ me at 214-653-7151.
}
/ Sincerely,
ears, P.E.
Senior Project Manage/~
JLM:dlc ~'-
cc: Shannon L. Hebb, P.E., Sverdmp Civil, Inc.
411 Elm Street, 4th Floor Dallas, Texas 75202
(214) 653-7151
]i .... I '11I I