Duke Lesley-CS061221 (2)
Pacheco Koch ' " 1 ~ ' 'I' , ' I
December 21, 2006
PK No.: 2768-06.303
Mr. Ken Griffin, P.E.
CITY OF COPPELL
255 Parkway Boulevard
Coppell, Texas 75019
~~
Re:
DIVIDEND DRIVE AND POINT WEST BOULEVARD
Coppell, Texas
Dear Mr. Griffin:
This letter is to notify you that the enclosed Construction Plans have been revised in
accordance with your November 16, 2006, Review Memorandum. The following items
have been addressed as per the referenced review:
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. This set does not include traffic signal plans for the intersection of Belt Line Road
and Dividend Drive. Will those plans come under a subsequent set of plans or will
they be included in the next submittal for this project?
Response: Traffic signal plans are included in this submittal.
2. Will there be streetlights in the median of Dividend Drive? If so, there was no design
included in the plan set.
Response: There will be streetlights in the median of Dividend Drive. We are
currently coordinating with TXU and will address this on the next submittal.
3. Provide sleeves under the proposed road before stabilizing for irrigation, gas, electric
and communications for the future developments so there is no need for franchise
utility companies to dig up the street at a later date to provide these services.
Response: We have shown sleeves for irrigation and electric in the medians
on the Water Plan & Profiles. We are currently coordinating with franchise
utilities and will address this comment on the next submittal.
4. The street name of Wrangler Drive is incorrect on the cover sheet's key map.
Response: Cover sheet's key map was revised.
PLAT COMMENTS
5. The plat is going to P&Z on Thursday. November 16 and it needs to reflect the
appropriate ROW width for Point West Boulevard with a minimum 50' ROWand 10'
sidewalk utility easement for a total of 60'.
Response: Point West Boulevard was revised to have a 5' sidewalk and utility
easement on each side of the 50' right-of-way.
Mr. Ken Griffin, P.E.
December 21,2006
Page 2
6. There appears to be a need for ROW off the existing Lot 2 Block C of Gateway Business Park at
the area where Dividend Drive enters this property. Let us know how you intend to address that.
Response: Dividend Drive alignment was revised to keep right-of-way off of Lot 2, Block
C of Gateway Business Park.
DIVIDEND DRIVE PAVING PLAN & PROFILE COMMENTS
7. Use consistent dimensions. Your typical paving section is measured face-to-face; your plan &
profile view is measured back-to-back.
Response: Typical paving sections were revised to match paving plans and
measurement is at back of curb.
8. The plan view has driveways that are shown - are those where you propose them to be or are
those potential locations only? That leads to the question of median openings, turn bays, drive
approaches - what portion of any of those should be constructed now, and which should be
done with each individual development?
Response: Driveways in plan views are potential locations. Median openings, turn bays
and drive approaches will be constructed as lots are developed.
9. There are a few places that show conflicts between fire hydrants or curb inlets at the future or
potential driveway locations. Do those need to be addressed now or will those locations be
modified in the future?
Response: Fire hydrant and curb inlet locations were moved from potential driveway
locations.
10. Should there be a turn bay for traffic turning north into the proposed drive at the intersection of
Dividend Drive and Point West Boulevard? If so, should it be constructed now?
Response: Turn bay was added for traffic turning north at this intersection.
11. Stamped concrete bands should be constructed at all three legs of the intersection of Dividend
Drive and Point West Boulevard.
Response: Stamped concrete bands were added at this intersection.
12. Point West Boulevard is dimensioned as 28' back-to-back but should be a minimum of 37' back-
to-back.
Response: Point West Boulevard was revised to have a 37' back to back pavement width.
13. The intersection of Dividend Drive with Belt Line Road should have a stamped concrete band
that is a minimum 8' in width.
Response: Stamped concrete band was added at this intersection.
Mr. Ken Griffin, P.E.
December 21, 2006
Page 3
14. You are proposing to close off a median opening and a turn bay that serves the property on the
east side of Belt Line Road and move the median opening to the north. Should a new turn bay
be constructed to serve the property east of Belt Line?
Response: Turn bay was added to serve the property east of Belt Line Road.
15. Provide a detailed grading and paving plan for this median opening.
Response: Turn Lane Plan was added for this intersection.
POINT WEST BOULEVARD PAVING PLAN & PROFILE COMMENTS
16. The street should be 37' back-to-back, with a minimum 50' of ROW with 10' of sidewalk and
utility easement.
Response: Point West Boulevard was revised to have a 50' right-of-way, two 5' sidewalk
and utility easements and 37' B-B pavement width.
17. There is a proposed inlet that seems to be in conflict with a proposed future driveway. Consider
that in your design.
Response: Inlet was moved from potential driveway.
18. Paver bands (stamped concrete) should be shown in the intersection of Dividend Drive and
Point West Boulevard.
Response: Stamped concrete bands were added to this intersection.
POINT WEST BOULEVARD PAVING PLAN & PROFILE COMMENTS
19. There are some areas where it appears that the storm sewer and the waterline could conflict,
however, there is no profile of the storm sewer included in the waterline profile. Include all
utilities and storm sewer crossings in the waterline profile.
Response: Water line profiles were revised to clear storm sewer. All sanitary sewer and
storm sewer crossings were added to water profiles.
20. There are several 12" stub-outs shown with a fire hydrant on the opposite side of the road from
the main. Is it really necessary that those be 12" stub-outs, or can something smaller than 12"
be used?
Response: Where water stubouts could possibly be used to service buildings and lots,
the stubouts were left at 12" for design flexibility. All other stubouts were revised to 8".
21. There are a few high points in the proposed profile that will need air release valves.
Response: Air release valves were added at high points.
Mr. Ken Griffin, P.E.
December 21 , 2006
Page 4
22. You will need to include blow-off valves in the area where the waterline is lowered under the
proposed box culverts.
Response: Blow off valve was and at box culvert crossing.
23. The dead end lines along Belt Line and Point West are longer than the maximum allowed.
These lines should be connected prior to developing the adjacent property. This will require the
dedication of a 20' utility easement.
Response: Utility easement was added to plat.
24. Ensure adequate separation of all water and sewer crossings.
Response: Water and sanitary sewer crossings were revised to have a minimum of 2'
vertical separation.
25. How will the 20 foot easement containing the sewer line adjacent to the Belt Line Right of Way
be dedicated?
Response: Easement will be dedicated by plat.
DRAINAGE PLAN COMMENTS
26. Drainage entering the TxDOT right of way will need to be coordinated with that agency.
Response: We are coordinating drainage issues with TxDOT.
27. Ensure an appropriate agreement is in place for the public stormwater entering the adjacent
private property (easement, developer's agreements, etc.).
Response: Noted.
28. Are the proposed open channel drainage systems permanent or temporary? Will they be
enclosed when the adjacent property is developed?
Response: Drainage channel along north property line will remain a channel. The
channel from Line liB" to the existing 10' x 6' box culvert will be enclosed for the next
submittal.
29. If they are permanent they will need additional structural measures to prevent erosion (concrete
bottom, gabions, etc.).
Response: Noted.
30. Who will be responsible for maintenance of these channels?
Response: Duke and or assignees.
31. Verify capacity of downstream collection system through field investigation to ensure that you will
not cause a problem for the adjacent properties.
Mr. Ken Griffin, P.E.
December 21, 2006
Page 5
Response: Noted.
32. Additional comments on drainage issues be forthcoming when more details are worked out.
Response: Noted.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please call at your earliest
convenience.
Sincerely,
c0~J::!:. ~~Q0
CJE/clj
2768-23