Loading...
ST9905-CS040615COPPELL June 15, 2004 Craig Bond, P.E. TranSystems Corporation 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 990 Dallas, TX 75234 RE: Bethel Road I Project # ST 99-05 Review Comments General 1. Need to provide information for streetlights, conduit, foundations, etc. 2. It appears as though the left and right designation in the profile view is reversed. Typical designation is looking at the plan view in ascending stationing. The right is on the right hand side of the plan view and the left is on the left-hand side of the plan view. It appears as though you have labeled your left and right in a descending stationing. 3. There are numerous notes throughout the plan which read "see detail sheet for modification". The sheet number should be noted. 4. Additional elevation information should be given at all intersections so that the city can better ascertain whether or not ADA requirements will be met through the accessible route. These will be typically curb return, PI and any other elevations necessary to make that determination 5. Number the plan sheets in sequential order and leave off the prefixes. 6. On the plan-profile sheets darken the entire 5-foot profile line. It appears that the labeling of the left and right existing ground lines is reversed. 7. There are existing 2-inch domestic and irrigation service lines to the various warehouses that are not shown in the plans. These lines will probably be impacted by the construction and need to be adjusted. Be sure that there is a pay item for these services. There may be sanitary sewer clean-outs located on or near the fight-of-way that will need to be placed back in service. Note 2: The existing fence along the DFW property will not be replaced in its original location. In the notes pertaining to the channel modifications - show the sheet number of the sheet that is being referenced. 'See Sheet CM-1 for wall/channel modification.' 10. The proposed sidewalk is 8-foot wide and not 10-foot. It is located on the north side of the roadway from Station 51+50 to the end of the project. It is labeled but not shown. The 255 PARKWAY lk PO.BOX 9478 ~ COpPELL TX 75OI 9 ~ TEL 972/462 0022 lit FAX 972/304 3673 parkway is generally 12 foot wide and the sidewalk needs to be located approximately 4 foot behind the back of curb. The back of the inlet should not be in the sidewalk. 11. Correct the typical cross-sections to reflect the location of the sidewalk. The cross-sections have a sidewalk on both sides. The typical sections also show a sidewalk on both sides. 12. A geotechnical report was prepared for the trench over the existing sewer line. The report recommended trench improvements in order to prevent future pavement failures. There are no details or notes pertaining to the required improvements in the plans. How will this be addressed? 13. The Post Office has stop signs and pavement markings that will need to be relocated and/or replaced after construction. 14. Show the location of the monument sign. 15. Update the 'Elected Officials'. Sheet TS-1 16. Show the pavement thickness on the typical sections. Sheet RW-3 17. Correct right-of-way acquisition for Duke-Freeport Addition, Lot 1, Block A. ownership of the Carter-Crowley property to City of Coppell. Correct Street PP-4 18. There are brick pavers in the business warehouse drives that are not shown. These pavers will have to be replaced when the drive is reconstructed. This is typical for many of the drive along Bethel Road. 19. The proposed drive impacts the existing fire/DC vault. This vault cannot be relocated. Sheet PP-5 & PP-6 20. The flee right-tum lane off of Bethel onto southbound Royal Lane should be eliminated to eliminate the conflict with Explorer Pipeline. 21. In order to avoid a conflict with Explorer Pipeline, the inlets at Sta. 23+50 and 26+86.09 will be constructed in accordance with typical TxDOT standards. There is no inlet detail or reference to the standards in the plans. Show the plan view with the inlet under the roadway. 22. The proposed drive impacts the existing fire/DC vault. This vault cannot be relocated. Sheet PP-7 23. The traffic signal poles should be shown in the plan view. 24. The "hump" on the west side of the driveway at approximate Sta. 32+92 should be eliminated i.e.; the free right mm lane should extend all the way up to the driveway. Also, should consider a 30' radius for the curb return. Sheet PP-13 25. It appears that the low point is at approximate Sta. 63+00, however the inlet is located at approx. Sta. 63+22 on the south side by Minyards. Without additional elevation information for the driveway from Minyards to Bethel, it is impossible to tell whether or not water will pond on the east side of the driveway. Also, it is difficult to tell whether or not the driveway itself will pull water off of the street, because no elevation information is being given. Sheet ID- 1 26. On the detailed Royal Lane intersection it appears that the accessible route has not been designed correctly. While sidewalks may not be proposed at this time, if in fact they were constructed in the future, the accessible route cannot exceed greater than 2% cross-slope. It appears that you are proposing them at 2.52%, 2.65% and 2.75%. However, it is difficult to ascertain whether or not that is correct because adequate elevation shots have not been provided. 27. The full paver ramps at the intersections do not meet ADA requirements. The ramps should be designed to meet ADA requirements. Also, the band should be stamped concrete, not brick pavers. These same comments also apply to the Freeport intersection. 28. No ramps on the south side of the intersection - conflict with existing channel and drainage. Since there is no sidewalk on the north side do we want ramps? No median noses in the crosswalks. Different ramp details are shown on the signal plan for this intersection. Specify stamped concrete and not brick pavers. Sheet ID-2 29. The 8-foot sidewalk is not shown on the north side of the roadway. Need to provide sufficient detail on the ramps to show that they are ADA and TDLR compliant. The City does not have compliant details. Since there is no sidewalk on south side do we want ramps? Different ramp details are shown on the signal plan for this intersection. Specify stamped concrete and not brick pavers. 30. Southbound Freeport Parkway south of the intersection needs to be widened to allow for two lanes of thorough traffic to cross from the north. Southbound Freeport has four traffic lanes on the north side of the intersection. Only one lane of through traffic is allowed. Sheet WS- 1 31. The 12" water line that ends at approximate Sta. 17+74 should be extended to the west to approximate Sta. 7+00 per the City of Coppell Water Master Plan. 32. The water and sewer adjustment plan shows tapping into the existing 16" water line. Please note the material of the 16" water line. Also, the tap would more than likely be made with a tapping sleeve and valve, not a separate 6" valve and box. You should note the locations where irrigation will be in conflict and need to be relocated. All through the water and sewer adjustments, notes are provided that read "proposed water lowering". Have you verified the location of the existing water line and does it need to be lowered in all cases or are we just providing a generic pay item? Sheet WS-4 33. The proposed fire hydrant relocation at Sta. 50+22 appears to have an incorrect length. The length should be closer to 30 feet and it will require a tap into the existing 16" water line. Sheet DA-1 34. The areas for drainage area 20A and 20B appear to be incorrect; visually drainage area 20A is larger than drainage area 20B. Also, there is no information provided for Drainage Area 19C. 35. All calculations should be provided for the drainage areas, i.e., time of concentration, nmoff coefficient, the intensity, the total runoff, etc. Sheet SD-1 36. Generally, it appears that you are trying to stay in strict conformance with City of Dallas guidelines on placement of inlets. My recommendation would be that there are several locations throughout this design where you are placing a single inlet on the street with several hundred feet of pipe to pick up approximately 3 to 4 cfs. It appears in most cases that that single inlet and hundreds of feet of pipe could be eliminated and the street would still have capacity and approximately 7-8 feet of dry paving before the next inlet. 37. On all storm drains, the hydraulic grade line, the 'q', pipe capacity, etc. should be provided. At best this is an incomplete submittal on drainage design. Sheet SD-2 38. My recommendation is to eliminate the inlet at Sta. 8+50, and the 550 feet of 21" RCP associated with it. Sheet SD-3 39. Because the drainage plans are incomplete, I did not entirely review Storm Drain Line B; however, I do question whether or not we need the inlets at Sta. 16+00 and the 21" and 18" RCP's associated with those inlets. It appears that those inlets could be eliminated in their entirety along with the pipe. Please reevaluate. Sheet SD-5 40. Need to insure that there is adequate room at the southwest comer of Royal and Bethel for the proposed traffic signal pole. Sheet SD-6 41. It appears that the inlet at Sta. 31+73 and the approximately 273" of 21" RCP pipe could be eliminated fi.om Line C. Sheet SD-9 42. It appears that the inlet at Sta. 50+00 and the approximately 400" of 21" RCP pipe could be eliminated. Sheet SD-10 43. It appears that the inlets at Sta. 58+50 and Sta. 59+00 on Line D could be eliminated, along with lateral D3. Sheet SD-11 44. The inlets at Sta. 61+00 and Sta. 61+50 probably should be 8 or 10 foot in size, not 6 foot. 45. Reevaluate the proposed low point at Sta. 63+00. The driveway location and inlet location could be a problem that creates standing water at that location. Sheet SD-12 46. All laterals should have the appropriate drainage information and hydraulic grade lines shown. Also, all sewer line, water line, existing utility crossings, etc. should be shown in the profile view of all laterals and main lines. Sheet SD- 15 47. Please comment as to why we are proposing to remove approximately 107 feet of the existing 5x10 box culvert and relaying it on a different angle. It appears that the existing box culvert could remain along with the existing headwall and we could add the three box culverts immediately north. Please reevaluate and comment. 48. In the profile view of the proposed 5 x 10 box culvert, please show the propose top of curb, the profile of the existing 5 x 10 box culvert and all appropriate drainage information and hydraulic grade lines. 49. There is an existing wye inlet on the Minyards site that connects to the existing box, please show it in the plan view. Sheet SD-16 50. Please provide the center line street stationing on all plans. 51. At approximately Sta. 8+30 of your proposed 5 x 10 box culverts, the plans show a PI in the existing 5 x 10 box culvert. If there is a PI in the existing box culvert, there will more than likely be one in the proposed three box culverts. This should be verified and shown correctly in the plan view. Sheet SD-18 52. The plans for the existing 5 x 10 box culvert show an existing pipe and wye inlet at the southwest comer of Freeport Pkwy and Bethel Rd. Please show that in the plan view. 53. Please comment as to why the existing 5 x 10 box culvert from Sta. 17+50 to its outfall is being proposed to be removed. Based on the plans for that existing 5 x 10 box culvert, it appears that it could remain and coexist with the proposed three 5 x 10 box culverts. Please reevaluate this. There is no need to be removing portions of the existing box culvert if it can be salvaged in its existing location. Sheet SD-20-SD-21 54. Show the existing sewer line, manholes, and storm outfalls in the plan and profile view. Sheet TCP-1 55. In the construction phasing you are showing to phase the construction for the first driveway east of Royal Lane on the north side. It will be difficult, if not impossible for trucks to utilize this driveway if it is constructed half at a time. My recommendation would be that the first two driveways be worked in a tandem i.e., one be constructed in its entirety, while the other is left open in its entirety and then vice versa for the next phase. The third driveway could be phased half at a time. Sheet PP-7 Signal Plan Bethel and Royal 56. ADA requires that a minimum pad size of 30" x 48" be provided at all traffic poles where there is a PED button. Need to insure that a level area is provided at all traffic poles. Also, opticom is required and should be shown. The City is considering using video detection, not loops at this intersection. The length of the various wire sizes was not provided. Sheet L-1 57. In the landscape plan, need to insure that there are no visibility issues created with the landscaping. Several modifications had to be made to the Sandy Lake Road project after the fact, because of visibility issues at the medians. Sheet CM-1 58. Label Royal Lane and Bethel Road, show the north arrow, show correct scales, and show the elevations at the top and bottom of wall. What happens with Lateral L-B. Is handrail required on top of the wall? The existing #3 rebar will not be salvaged and reused. Show the retaining wall in the appropriate cross-sections. Sheet CM-2 59. The retaining walls vary in length at the different drives. Show the various lengths of the walls. Need to show correct scale, elevations at the top and bottom of the walls. Show the retaining walls in the appropriate cross-sections.