First Baptist-CS031007Craig M. Hoenes, E.I.T.
Project Manager
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 1800
Dallas, TX 75251
T H E C I T V O F
RE: First Baptist Church Expansion
Lot 1, Block A
Construction Plan 3` Review Comments
Dear Mr. Hoenes:
cprFELL
255 PARKWAY P. 0 BOX 9478 COPPCLL TX 75019 TEL 972/962 0022 FAX 972/304 3673
October 7, 2003
The City of Coppell has reviewed the referenced plans and has the following comments to offer:
1. Note #31 under "General Construction Notes" should also reference the Texas Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Sheet C -6
2. If the proposed retaining wall is being constructed with the parking lot on the east side and
with the sidewalk and parking lot on the west side, then plans and details for the retaining
wall should be provided with this set of construction plans, as the retaining wall will be
inspected by Public Works inspectors. Provide a cross section of the retaining wall and
parking lot so there is no confusion in the field. Also, in discussions with the Planning
Department, the front retaining wall should have a finish that matches the brick or cast stone
on the new building or monument sign. Unsure who will inspect the proposed retaining wall
between the existing building and the proposed building.
3. The discharge of drainage from the east parking lot to the north does not appear to work. You
are showing a top of curb elevation of 498.6. When you factor in the top of the inlet and the
inlet gutter transition, the throat of the inlet would be at 497.77. This would also be the
discharge point on the north side of the modified inlet. All the adjacent elevations are 1 -2
feet higher that the 497.77 elevation. You show to have a 2% grade to drain leaving the
modified inlet, please show the exact location and limits of the grade to drain. Again, based
on the information provided, it does not appear as though this solution, as proposed, will
work.
Sheet C -8
4. The runoff calculation table was corrected as requested. However, the information provided
on the drainage plan still shows the incorrect Q for Drainage Areas 6, 7, 11 and 12.
Sheet C -9
5. You are showing to use wyes to connect off of the proposed 8" water line for your•domestic
and irrigation service. Did you mean to use a wye or a tee?
6. The location of the proposed sanitary sewer in Denton Tap Road will be difficult to construct
without impacting two lanes. Based on my calculations, there will be approximately 20 feet
of paving left with a 12 -foot adjacent sheer drop to construct the sanitary sewer manhole.
Given the fact that the sheer drop will have to be barricaded from adjacent traffic, you would
be left with approximately 17 to 18 feet to squeeze two lanes of fast moving traffic through.
This does not appear to be a workable solution.
Have you considered moving the manhole location further north which would bring it closed
to the east curb line of Denton Tap Road? Also, another option you may wish to consider
would be to utilize a precast manhole with an internal drop. If a precast manhole with an
internal drop is used, then the straps and bolts must be stainless steel. Using a combination
of the precast manhole with an internal drop and shifting the manhole location further north
should give you the opportunity to construct the manhole without impacting more than one
lane of Denton Tap Road. Please review this and let me know at your earliest convenience if
you wish to pursue this option. It also may be necessary to encase the existing 16"
waterline.
7. The existing two -inch water service should be abandoned at the main line. More than once
these abandoned lines with stub -outs have been hit by franchise utility companies, causing
our Public Works Department to respond at which time we typically have to remove the
street and disconnect the service from the main line. Again, the two -inch service should be
abandoned at the main.
8. The FDC should be freestanding, not connected to the fire line.
9. A double check should be provided for the 3" domestic service.
Sheet C -11
10. Section A -A for the 14 -foot flow through curb inlet does not appear to be correct. Per Sheet
C -9, the top of curb at the inlet is 498.6. Therefore, the entrance to the inlet should be
approximately 497.77, as the entrance is typically 10" lower than the top of the curb. Also,
as stated previously the adjacent ground is approximately1-2 feet higher than the outlet point
of this modified inlet. This will be a problem trying to create a grade to drain that does not
stand in water.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at your
convenience. The City of Coppell has been expecting these plans for numerous weeks now,
therefore, to expedite the correction of these comments you may wish to contact my office to
schedule a meeting with me to go over these comments.
Sincerely,
enneth M. Griffin, P.E.
Director of Engineering and Public Works
Office 972/304 -3686
Fax: 972/304 -7041
HP LaserJet 3330
City of Coppell
972- 304 -7041
Oct -7 -2003 4:16PM
Fax Call Report
Job Date Time Type
74 10/ 7/2003 4:15:23PM Send
Identification Duration Pages Result
9722393820
C_OPPELL
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FAX COVER SHEET
Tel non_ Rom
nu. q n .739 -3 $JO
Pews
5N,
Rcl
1:17
f 7/t
pndiding cover 'heel)
55an.5 o..a Review on.... Cornmeal ❑Plow. Reply ll•w.me
.eemn.nm
A6 n r „n L. i06, Q'..0
1
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES PLEASE CALL 972) 300 -3696
'Cry of Coppell Engheering- Excellence 9y Deng.”
.O Box 415
205 Nhway &M
Cory* TX 75010
a'haa: (172)304.26.6
Fox 1/7210047041
3
OK
i n v e n t