Loading...
Riverchase(1)-CS 940104JACOBS & ILTING :ENGINEERS Phone: (214) 361;7~;',',~' . : :; (214) 361-020i }: * Memorandum To: Files Subject: city of (91 i'17) Dallas Supply Line No. 3 From: Joe R. Carter Date: January 4, 1994 ~ ~ On this day a meeting was held at the City of Coppell Service Center to discuss the Dallas Water Supply Linc No. 3 project as it related to the development of some property between MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road [within corporate linfits of Coppell). Attending the meeting: Steve Goram (Director of Public Works) ......................... City of Coppell ~ Howard Pafford (Utilities Superintendent) .................... City of Coppell ' · David Mullins, P.E ......................................................... City of Irving 5'" Joe Carter, P.E ............................................................ Shimek, Jacobs & Finldea David Brown ....................................................... Developer Mr. Goram explained that he wanted to meet in order that he could understand how the project had dcveloped to this point and to discuss how the City of Coppell might assist the City of Irving m acquisition of some of the easements that were required Mr Goram stressed the fact that the City of Coppell was a partner in the project and interested in reducing the overall cost of the project if they could. He said that was his understanding until recently that the proposed pipeline was to be located east of the ex~sting 54-inch, and he has now been informed by Mr. Carter that the current aligmmcnt is north or west of the existing 54-inch . Mr. Carter explained that originally the proposed pipeline was to be south or east of the existing 54-inch from south of Sandy L~e Road to a point just north of thc railroad and Belt Line Road. TU Electric has been approached with the idea of thc original proposed ahgnment ,and basically responded by sa~,sng that the current policy does not allow anybody to get e~scmcnts within our easements or nghts-of-~=y unless they are crossing or not parallel for long distances For utilities x~hich must cross our property we grant a centerline easement with no width restricting Tiffs proposed usc for thc propc%'. Because of this response it was decided to parallel the TU Electric fight-of-way and the existing 54-inch ti) thc north ,or west. Mr. Gormn explained what had transpired bctx~ccn thc developer and the City of Coppcll in their discussions relating to thc suppl3 line projcct,' ~ n, wanted to know whether or not the line should be west of the existing 54-inch or cast of thc cxistmg 54-inch. Mr. Mullins explained that In'lng had also discussed this x~Sth thc: developer and had learned that the sa~nc ox~cr also controllcd property bctweea MacArthur and City of Coppcll tank site. The current alignment easements needed were 0387 acres between Belt Line and MacArthur and 2.037 acres between MacArthur and thc tank site. lrviug's preliminary rough appraisal indicated that it might cost as much as $70,000 to purchase both tracks. He said that according to Mr. Carter's oph~ion thc probable additional construction cost for the revised aligmncnt would be about $50,000. From that perspective Irving would probably be willing to revise the alignment if thc developer would dedicate both of the casements or charge very little (lc. $10.00 per tract). Mr. Got:un then pointcd out that there was a plat filed for Nor~hlake Woodlands East - Phase 10B which had lots ;tbutli,.,.,, tl~e exist ng sanity[r) scwcr just south of MacArthm, and that due to thc vcry shallow depth of thc lots hc f, lt ~hc~c co'.~t bc problcms ~ith t~yiag to get an casement even only 20 fcct wide in/his area After looking at ttxc plal ~c Another route wa.s discussed ";ch would ahgn me proposed pipehnc to east of the existing 54-inch at tho so~t; end of the.develo~s'p~t anu .,eh taming.n6~rthweSt and paralleling the soumeast linc of the TH 30-foot easement -: ~here:~ould be a shght ~ction atthe north end0fthe plat due to a proposed bmlfling ; :however'we think We;jc6Uld make it work. ~;Th.e pr6p0sed pipeline would then b~'bored at an mille across M~a~ and then be just within the nght-7of-way ~of M~/dArthur on the northeast side of the road until we got back on proposed alignment.: '2~ See commentS afte~memo notes*. Without a' detailed' investigation this appear¢.~. acceptable alternate route subject to the folloWing considerations: (2) The approxhnate cost of the t~x o easements was as follows: $8.000 ............................. 0.387 acre tract $62,000 ............................ 2.037 acre tract Th. ere are at least *(2. See Comments) $50;000 of extra costs assccmted vnth th~ alternate, due to th6 two extra~; crossings of the existing 54-inch and relaied items. ' ' (3) Therefor this alterrmte would only work for Irx4ng if the developer agreed that this alignment revision was beneficial enough that he would dedicate both tracts of easement Otherwise Irving would have the additional cost of thc realignment (at least $50,000*) minus the cost of thc small easement tract ($8,000) if that was the only one to be dedicated. For a minimum additional cost of $42,000. When David Brown with the developer was approached with the new revised alignment and asked whether or not he would dedicate the additional 30-foot easement along the northwest side of his plat he indicated he could not say without discussion with the o,~ner~ He expressed some concern about the construction being in potential conflict with several concrete parking areas and the timing of the proposed pipeline not being fast enough to avoid delaying development Afl:er discussing the approximate timing of thc dex elopmcnt and the proposed pipeline it appeared that this consideration could be, addressed by a combination of phasing the proposed development and fast4racking this section of the proposed pipeline. When Mr. Mullins asked what cx>mpensation would be required of thc large easement tract Mr. Brown sa/d, 'We will want market value, we will be fair with 3wu." Mr. Mullins explained that if the developer was going to insist on full compensation for the large easement then Irving would be out $40,000 to $50,000 by realigning the project and he did not feel that this would be acceptable. There was no indication that the developer would agree in principal and that the rev/sion of alig~anent would justify the dedication of the 2.037 acre easement or the sale of&~e ca~ement for a nominal fee. Mr. Brox~m said he would investigate the feasibili~ or acceptability of the 30-fo~)t casement along the northwest line of the plat. At this poiw. the meeting was adjourned (I) After thc mozting Mr. Carter and Mr. Mullins discussed M~at had transpired and agreed that if the status of the large casement did not change (i e. developer wanting rut! compensation) ~cn this latest alternate alignment would probably not be fcasiblc from Imng's vicw poir. t However in (onsideration of thc shallow lots affected by the plat in Northlake Woodlands and the cost of purchasing an easement across them it n)a3 bc cost cfllcicnt to revise the alignment because Irving n,Jght in effi.~ct end tip purchasi:~g t}e entirc lot for each one crossed by the project. If market value is about $2/s.f. the additional cost of thc revised alignment could bc used to purchase thc lots if they tota!~ less than 25,000 sf. (2) ~ll~cre is another item to consider for addifiotml cost for the alternate alignment along thc northwest line of the plat, and that is the extra length of the "anglcd" bore under MacArthur. If thc bore is at 45° to thc street the length of 54~inch with 78-inch steel encasement pipe would increase from 110 feet to abut 156 fcct which would ill,thor incrcase the cost of the project about $35,000. ~Ilfis was not discussed during thc meeting; howcvcr, the addition of tiffs to the already increased cost may make the current alig~m)cnt the most cost cffectivc (3) On 1/5/94 Mr. Cartcr prepared a Rough Opinion of ProbabL' Additional Costs for thc ~ootc along the south side of thc TU cz~scmcnts These costs could ran from $109,000 t,). 1 ~3,000 Mr. Roa McCuller Mr. David Mullins, P.E.