Email re decel lanes on MacArthMarcie Diamond - Vista Point II
From: Ken Griffin
To: Marcie Diamond
Date: 5/10/2005 8:24:59 AM
Subject: Vista Point II
CC: Charlene LaMattina
Marcie
I've included our latest discussions with Lewisville concerning the d~cel lanes on MacArthur. They are
not opposed to having two decel lanes serving Vista Point II. Unles~something happens at Council
tonight that prevents us from requiring the two decel lanes, ie., a persuasive developer, we will make
the two decel lanes a requirement of the plan approval.
ken g
Ken
Our General Development Ordinance allows some staff flexibility with rega 'd to deceleration lanes in cases with
multiple driveways. As long as the northern decel lane meets our requirerr ents, we have the ability to either
waive the south one or modify the design without a formal variance proces
I would agree that a shorter modified design is better than none at all or a c~ontinuous one. Also, as this is
serving property outside of our City Limits, I think we have a little more discretion.
David Salmon
Mr. Salmon
This is a followup to our phone conversation on 4/25/05 and your ex4ail to Mr. Hauglie concerning
decel lanes on MacArthur that serve Vista Point II in Coppell. Ourqity Council approved the
development with a stipulation that we work with Lewisville to require decel lanes at both driveways.
1 expressed a concern at the Council meeting about one long decel lathe that serves two driveways.
Attached to this email is an exhibit that proposes two separate decel
lane meets your requirements for transition and length. However, to
possible to meet you requirements for the southern decel lane. You i
and 70 feet of storage. We are only able to provide 100 feet of tram
While this is not optimal, it still provides a safer turn than no decel 1~
lane.
anes. The northern most decel
separate the decel lanes, it is not
lad requested 100 feet of transition
ition and 44 feet of storage.
me or one long continuous decel
We have a short decel lane on southbound Denton Tap that serves a
transition and 60 feet of storage. It has functioned as anticipated, wi
am proposing a longer transition and less storage on this one becaus~
lane on Denton Tap is that the 80 feet of transition seems a little abn
This will be discussed at our Council meeting of 5/10/05, so any fee,
on 5/10/05 would be appreciated.
;hopping center that has 80 feet of
:h no adverse impact. I
: my only concern with the decel
:pt at high speeds.
lback prior to the end of the day
file://C:\temp\GW} 00001 .HTM 5/13/2005
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
..... Original Message .....
From: DSalmon@cityoflewisville.com [mailto:DSalmon@cityoflewisville.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:27 AM
To: Erik 1'4. Hauglie
Subject: Deceleration Lane On Mac. Arthur @121
The City of Lewisville will only require a deceleration lane at the northern rdost driveway, however will support
construction of either a continuous deceleration lane to serve both drivewa~/s or separate deceleration lanes for
each driveway as long as the northern deceleration lane has 110 feet of tra~nsition and 100 feet of storage and
the southern deceleration lane has at least 100 feet of transition and a minil-num of 70 feet of storage.
Ken Griffin P. E.
Director of Engineering/Public Works
972-304-3686
kgriffi n~ci.coppell.tx.us
file://C:\temp\GW} O0001.HTM 5/13/2005