TR9301-CS 920918Barten-Aeckm~n Assoclll~es, Inc.
5485 Belt Line Road, Suite 199 Phone: (214) 991-1900
usADalIas' Texas 75240 FIL£ COPY Metro:Fax: (214) 490-9261263.9138
Ms. M. Shohre Da~shmand, P,E.
City of Coppell .
The purpose of this letter is to verify our conversation
intersection of Coppell Road and Bethel Road. After extensive research, it was decided that
the ex[sting right-of-way (ROW) on Coppell is 60' and on Bethel is 50% The 60' of ROW on
Coppell was vedfied through the City Tax Department. The 50' of ROW on Be~el was much
harder to verify. The tax department sent three plans and all three showed a different ROW
for Bethel. Dallas County Public Works was contacted to verify the ROW. Dallas County
could not verify the ROW on Bethel; the only information from Dallas County was dated 1925
(predating cars). The 50' of ROW on Bethel was verified through the Thoroughfare Plan; the
repo~ states on Page 8 that the existing ROW for Bethel is 50'. Also, the c~ncil meeting
minutes for the approval of the Thoroughfare Plan verified the 50' ROW. A copy of the
relevant page of the council meeting minutes are attached,
Through discussions with City staff and also verified by the attached council meeting minutes,
it was decided that both Bethel and Coppell would remain two-lane undivided roadways, but
with a possible upgrade to a standard residential cross-section {also attached). This cross-
section will be assumed for both Coppell Road and Bethel Road in the intersect]on signal
design.
I am proceeding with the signal design using the following assumptions:
I 1. Coppell Road has 60' of ROW.
2. Bethel Road has 50' of ROW.
3.
4.
The corner ROW will be square and the tip will be located where 60' of ROW
for Coppell Road crosses 50' of ROW for Bethel Road.
Coppell Road and Bethel Road could possibly be upgraded to a residential cross-
section. The mast arm length, etc. will be designed to accommodate this
cross-section.
Ms. M. Shohre Daneshmand, P.E.
September 18, 1992
Page 2
If these assumptions are not in agreement with you or other City staff members, please
contact me at once.
Sincerely,
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATION, INC.
Karen M. George
Associate
KMG:tdb
RESIE "NT AL
2 I. ANE$
11.5' 27'
80' R.O.Wo
I ELEIdENT
8TANDARD
Number of lanes
Lane WiMhs (feet)
Ri~tt-of Way Width (feet)
Gr~ ~t)
8t~ 8~t Oi~m~ (~t)
2 2 2
60 5O 50
25 X 80
0.5 rain 15 m~x 4-16t
150-200 200-225 200-225
200 200 $00
2 S
Horizontal Curvature(min. radlue.fee;)
Vertk~l C~erar~e
lateral Cl,.~r, mce (Met)
CMN~ity (vINI) : 5,000
'Normal Crown
FIGURE C-8
Bill Blaydes of 200L Bryant Suite 1500, Dallas, is with tbs
~aptist Foundation, s m&Jor land Owner o£ property along
kthsl Road. He stated that he was in favor of widening
~hs road to accommodate traffic which bm feels will
I) George Chadick, owner of some property on Baths1 Road,
stated that hem would like to see the road widened to
express his desire to the Council that Bethel Road be
widened for safety pu=posee and to facilitate increasing
Plan of Fuhruary, 1987. with the e~csption that Bethel Ro~d,~t#.~
F~-~ort and Bgthel Sch0ol Road r~aln at'~0 lanes ~S0~
a~ not inclu~lng the traffic aigna~ at Royal bane A~ 'Gateway
(Southwestern) Boulevard, which will be considered and voted on
separately follow~ng completion of this section of the ordinance.
Councilman Robertaon seconded the motion. The motion carried
signalization at the ln=ersect~on of Royal bane and Gateway
(Southwestern) Boulevard and the need for a connecting roadway
between Gateway Boulevard and IH-635. Following discussion by the
Royal bane and Gateway Boulevard as presented by City Staff be
approved, with the condition that City Council receive a letter
from Mr. Sill Thompson whereby he wll! negotiate an alternate
solution with the State of Texas. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Robertson. The motion carried 6-1 with Mayor Pro Tam
Nelson voting in favor o~ the motion and councilman Tho~9~.~_v~_~
against ~le ~otlon. ~?~!i!i~~ .,
no~0~"--~'"from Mr. Bill Thompson within 90 days, the
Ordinance will be brought back to Council for further consideration
at that time.
Item ES-2 A.
(Closed to the Publ£c)
Article 6252-17, Section 2 (e) and Senate
2. Lomas & Nsttleton Agreement/MacAx~chur
Boulevard Right of way
property and City liability
I. Status report on Library Site Acquisition
2. Connell Skaggs Drainage
Article 6252-17, Section 2 (g) die(~.tssion
concerning personnel
1. Legs1 Counsel
5485 Belt Line Road. Suite 199
Dallas. Texas 75240
USA
Phone: (214) 991-1900
Fax: (214) 490-9261
Metro: 263-9138
September 15, 1992
Ms. M. Shohre Daneshmand, P.E.
Civil Engineer
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Dear Shohre:
I have put together the information ! have on ROW at Coppell/Bethel. The tax del:~rtment
information shows Coppetl to have 60' of ROW on every sheet. For Bethel, the information
on ROW is not consistent with every sheet. The first sheet shows 50' of ROW (25' each
side), the second sheet shows 60' of ROW (30' each side), and the third sheet shows 50' of
ROW on the east side and less ROW, but not labeled, on the west side, I have a call into Ray
Gonzales to try and verify the ROW on Bethel. If you could, it would probably be good to
verify the ROW with the County~, also. As soon as I find out something from Ray I will
The thoroughfare plan seems to be confusing also. The map shows both Bethel and Coppell
to be C2U. This means the roadways could be widened to allow parking (Figure C-7}. Does
the City see parking to be allowed in the future;' Or will the roadways act more es residential
streets (Figure C-8)? We have been assuming the roadways will not be widened, if this is not
correct t need to know as soon as possible.
The final plans are complete except for these two ~ssues. These two issues need to be
resolved before the plans can be submitted. As soon es these two issues are resolved, I will
also send you a new schedule for comp(etion. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Karen M. George
Associate
KMG:tdb
Post-It" brand fax transmittal memo 7671
_.Z .... S_LMJVLO_ N_.S
.._ ACRES ~_-1 0
D 1-\ L L/\ 5
~8 '20'8
MAP,).
£ORO ET.
COVER5 ALL 'THIS
CATH~It INE J. FREEMAN
SUR ;.
COUN-FY-.. PLAT BOOKS.
ABSTRACT NO .... ',i"2_9_6_ '.¢ SH£E.Td ) ":
SCALE-- ~.O~O~-FT. EQUAL ! INCH .t.) 'C) ' .{
JA MC 5; W. A ND E R.50 N
J.F. VEST SUR. , '
ABST. 1508. '-, ] -'' '
L _~ RD.
TOwN:JO: COPPELL.
fl'L/
COPPELL
Appendix B has the existing 1986 demographic data and the enhanced year 2010 demographic data per zone. These
employment figures represent a gain of approximately 45.000 employees over what NCTCOG had berm assnmln$
for the year 2010.
The resulting traffic volume forecast, illustrated in Figure 2, represents the estimated daily traffic volunm projections
for the year 2010 given the thoroughfare system is in place and the population and employmant ~stimates become
reality. Many of these volumes represent a 180 to 300 percent growth in traffic over counts on record for 1986.
'the traffic volume projections are used to determ~e tho width of the proposed thoroughfare plan network given
in Figure 3. The following volume criteria, based on the Highway Capacity Manual, is used to de~rmine the street
widths at a level of sen, ice C design level:
Two Lane Roadway - 0 > x > = I0,000 vim
Four lane. Undivided Roadway - 10,000> x > = 20,0(10 vpd
Four Lane, Divided Roadway - 20,000> x > = 25,000 vpd
Six Lane, Divided Roadway -- 25.000> x > -- 35,000 vlxl
In no case is a thoroughfare exceeding capacity with the recommended widths shown in Figure 3. However, in
some eaa~ additional capacity is recommended due the relationship of the thoroughfare and tho adjacent land uses
namely Freeport Parkway ami Sandy Lake Road. Where thoroughfares transition from one class of thoroughfare
to another at an intersection special intersection treatments will be necessary.
Some individual thoroughfare isaues that have been raised involve Gateway Park'way/Southwestem Parkway, Bethel
Road, Sandy Lake Road and SH 121. The issues that were raised and the recommendations that address those
issues are es follows:
Cmteway Parkway/Southwestern
Issue - How wide should the roads be, four lane divided or undivided?
Recommendation - Gateway Parkway should be four lane divided between l~lt Line Road and
Freeport Parkway and four lane undivided between Freeport Parkway and Royal Lane.
Southwestern should be a trna lane undivided. The undivided section will serve as a collector
street in the industrial areas were a large nuraber of trucks are expected. The median in a divided
roadway would be an added obstacle for the large trucks expected to use the roadway.
Bethel Road
Issue ~ Bethel Road serves the Historical District in Coppell. However, it also setwes eommoreial
and industrial land uses. Does it need to be a six lane divided roadway aa eallod for ia the cmt
plan.'?
Recoramondation - Bethel Road needs to be six lane divided from SH 121 to Royal Lan*.
Between Royal Lane and Freeport Parkway it narrows to four lane undivided. In the Histofiead
District from Freeport Parkway to Bethel School Road, the traffic projections only jnafify two
traffic lanes. The existing 50-foot rinht-of-wa¥ is recommended to _.maintain__~msitivity
historic structures in this area of the cit2t. From Bethel School to Demton Tap Road. a 90-foo~
~gh~-of-way is recommended to accommodate the heavy traffic darmmd$ that will b~ g~nmted
from the developments proposed adjacent to Bethel Road in tkis area.
8
I
FII3URE 3
C2U-COLLECTOR
L
2-LANES
PARKING PERMITTED ONE SIDE
88' R.O.W
2-LANES
PARKING PERMITTED BOTH SIDES
40'
Nu~l~er of Lanes
Lane Width8 (feet)
IRa-of Way WkRh (feet)
~ s~ ~H)
~ (~t)
~ ~t Dle~e (~t)
~r~l Cu~ature (m~. r~iue, feet)'
v~l C~e (~t)
L~I C~m (~t)
ST~D~D
Mln~num Oeeimble
2 2
11 12
5O 80 eO
30 X
0.5 10 7-10,t:
200-225 225-250
300 48o 480
16 15~
C4#~city (vlxl) = lO~X)o
'Nermal Crown
FIGURE C-7
RE~,NTIAL
1 1
2 LANES
ELEMENT
STANDARD
Number of Lanes
Lane Wldth~ (feet)
Right-of Way Width (feet)
~ (~t)
Stop~ ~ D~m~ (~t)
M~mum Dee~,elV, e Recommended
2 2 2
11 12 11
5O 5O 60
25 X ~0
0.5 mln 16 ~ ~1~
15~200 2~225 2~226
200 200 800
18' 1~ 1~
2 6 ~
Horizontal Curvature(min. radluts,fee[
Vertical Clearance (feet)
Lateral Clearance (feet)
C~ity (vied) : s,000
'Normal Crown
FIQURE C-8