ST9905-CS050502
as-d{;().5 ~n I (c~p ~Yvvu..X ~ud Ov\ ~A~ 4 " LAQvU- fu tA,latl\ (PLtHM~V'5
l~l~. \lJUAL ~ lJ\I~ loCMW~~ 0(/\ ~ r.
sr
draft
May 2, 2005
Craig Bond, P.E.
Tr~Sy~~sCo~omtion
3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 990
Dallas, TX 75234
RE: Bethel Road I Project
ST 99-05
Review Comments
Comments were provided to you on June 15, 2004 for consideration. I have gone over these
comments to see if they were addressed in the Nov~ber 2004 pl~s ~d noted whether they were or
were not addressed. New comments are shown in Italics.
General
1. Need to provide information for streetlights, conduit, foundations, etc.
Addressed
2. It appears as though the left ~d right designation in the profile view is reversed. Typical
designation is looking at the pl~ view in ascending stationing. The right is on the right h~d side
of the pl~ view ~d the left is on the left-h~d side of the pl~ view. It appears as though you
have labeled your left ~d right in a descending stationing.
Addressed
Exception ~ Plan Sheet 13: There are two 'EX GROUND LT Ro. W' one should be revised to
'EX GROUND RT Ro.W'. Plan Sheet 20: There are two 'EX GROUND RT Ro.W' one
should be revised to 'EX GROUND LT R 0. W '.
3. There are numerous notes throughout the pl~ which read "see detail sheet for modification".
The sheet number should be noted.
Plan Sheet 15: 'See Signal Plan Sheets 91-114 for signal details' needs to be revised to show the
correct sheet numbers. 'See Landscape Plan Sheets 115-129 for landscape c01?flicts' needs to be
revised to show the correct sheet numbers.
Plan Sheet 19: Station 53+09.45- revise note to read 'See Detail on Sheet 85.'
Plan Sheet 20: 'See Landscape Plan Sheets 91-114 for signal details' needs to be revised to show
the correct sheet numbers.
Plan Sheet 21: Station 61 +00- revise note to read 'See Detail on Sheet 85.'
Plan Sheet 21: Station 63+ 12.35- revise note to read 'See Detail on Sheet 86.'
4. Additional elevation infonnation should be given at all intersections so that the city c~ better
ascertain whether or not ADA requirements will be met through the accessible route. These will
be typically curb return, PI ~d ~y other elevations necessary to make that determination.
Addressed
5. Number the pl~ sheets in sequential order and leave off the prefixes.
Addressed
Exception ~ Need to number the landscape plans. Ensure that Plan Index on cover sheet
agrees with numbering.
1
draft
6. On the pl~-profile sheets darken the entire 5-foot profile line. It appears that the labeling of
the left ~d right existing ground lines is reversed.
Addressed
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 c1e~-outs located on or near the right-of-way that will need to be placed back
. .
III sefVlce.
Address in spec~fications ~ noted some locations in the plans. See Note 32 for additional
locations.
8. Note 2: The existing fence along the DFW property will not be replaced in its original
location.
Addressed ~ Note 2 on plan-profile sheets.
9. In the notes pertaining to the channel modifications - show the sheet number of the sheet that
is being referenced. 'See Sheet CM-l for wall/channel modification.'
Addressed except for locations shown in Note 3.
10. The proposed sidewalk is 8-foot wide ~d not lO-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
parkway is generally 12 foot wide ~d the sidewalk needs to be located approximately 4 foot
behind the back of curb. The back ofthe inlet should not be in the sidewalk.
Addressed
Exception: Back of inlet is in sidewalk - city will have to work with Duke Realty.
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.
Addressed
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?
Addressed - Note 7 on Water & Sewer Adjustments
13. The Post Office has stop signs ~d pavement markings that will need to be relocated ~d/or
replaced after construction.
Page 18: Station 45+37- there are barricades that will need to be removed and replaced
and pavement makings (arrows in and out) that will need to be replaced.
14. Show the location of the monument sign.
Addressed - the Station Number is shown as 75+ 00 and should be revised to 0+ 75.
15. Update the 'Elected Officials'.
Mayor - Doug Stover
Mayor Pro Tem - Diana Raines
Tim Brancheau.... Jayne Peters....Marsha Tunnell.... Billy Faught.... Thom Suhy.... Bill York
Sheet TS-l
16. Show the pavement thickness on the typical sections.
Addressed - change 3000 psi to3600 psi on all four sections.
2
draft
Sheet RW-3
17. Correct right-of-way acquisition for Duke-Freeport Addition, Lot 1, Block A. Correct ownership
of the Carter-Crowley property to City ofCoppell.
Addressed
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.
Addressed - brick pavers shown.
These plans will have to be reviewed by IDLR so it is necessary to show information about the
ADA requirements. We need to add a Paving Cross Section for the drives at Station 18+51.01,
22+10.63,23+57.89,27+74.72,32+92.24,39+16.04, and 41+89.62. Show a minimum of 5'
within the brick paver crosswalk with a grade of 2% or less per PED-02, Sheet 2 of 3.
19. The proposed drive impacts the exi~ing firelDC vault. This vault cannot be relocated.
Addressed
Sheet PP-5 & PP-6
20. The free right-turn l~e off of Bethel onto southbound Royal L~e should be eliminated to
eliminate the conflict with Explorer Pipeline.
Addressed
21. In order to avoid a conflict with Explorer Pipeline, the inlets at Sta. 23+50 ~d 26+86.09 will be
constructed in accord~ce. with typical TxDOT st~dards. There is no inlet detail or reference to
the ~~dards in the pl~s. · Show the pl~ view with the inlet under the roadway.
The inlet at Station 23+ 50 has been removed
Plan Sheet 14: The note for the inlet at Station 26+50 is incorrect and needs to agree with the
note on Plan Sheet 48.
22. The proposed drive impacts the existing firelDC vault. This vault cannot be relocated.
Addressed
Sheet PP-7
23. The traffic signal poles should be shown in the pl~ view.
Not addressed ~ need to try and locate the pull boxes and traffic signal pole locations outside
any future sidewalk and ramp improvements. If any improvements are ever constrncted we will
not have to relocate the poles and boxes.
24. The "hump" on the west side of the driveway at approximate Sta. 32+92 should be eliminated i.e.;
the free right turn l~e should extend all the way up to the driveway. Also, should consider a 30'
radius for the curb return.
Addressed
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
3
.~
V
h""
\ \rf
" ,~
-.I ...J
~..~
draft
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.
Addressed
Sheet ID-I
26. On the detailed Royal L~e 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 th~ 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.
It appears that the southwest end of the south crosswalk on Royal Lane may have a grade that
still exceeds the 2% minimum. (523.48 - 522.85 =0.63/27.48 =.0229) On the 60% submittal
there were arrows that indicated direction and grade -- can those be added back to this sheet?
Show traffic signal poles ~ need to try and locate the pull boxes and traffic signal pole locations
outside any future sidewalk and ramp improvements. If any improvements are ever constructed
we will not have to relocate the poles and pull boxes.
27. The full paver ramps at the intersections do not meet ADA requirements. The ramps should be
designed to meet ADA requirements. Also, the b~d should be stamped concrete, not brick
pavers. These same comments also apply to the Freeport intersection.
Addressed
28. No ramps on the south side of the intersection - conflict with existing channel ~d drainage.
Since there is no sidewalk on the north side do we w~t ramps? No medi~ noses in the
crosswalks. Different ramp details are shown on the signal pl~ for this intersection. SpecifY
stamped concrete ~d not brick pavers.
Addressed
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 ~d TDLR compli~t. The City does not have
compli~t details. Since there is no sidewalk on south side do we w~t ramps? Different ramp
details are shown on the signal pl~ for this intersection. Specify ~amped concrete ~d not brick
pavers.
Correct the ramps and sidewalk to match Sheet 22. Label the contour elevations. The southwest
radius appears to drain to the center of the radius and has too flat a grade for a portion of the
radius (514.26 - 514.25 = .01/31.41 = .0003)
r. 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 l~es on
the north side of the intersection. Only one l~e of through traffic is allowed.
Addressed
Sheet WS-I
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 ofCoppell Water Master Pl~.
4
draft
Addressed
32. The water ~d sewer adjustment pl~ shows tapping into the existing 16" water line. Please note
the material of the 16" water line.
Material of 16-inch water line is noted on Plan Sheet 39 - please add this same note to Plan
Sheets 40 through 44.
Also, the tap would more th~ likely be made with a tapping sleeve ~d valve, not a separate 6"
valve ~d box.
The existing fire hydrants are outdated and need to be replaced- not relocated Need to add note
to remove existing fire hydrants. (Stations 18+15, 23+85, 26+58, 29+58, 31+99, 31+99)
37+99,41+00,44+00,47+00,52+22,52+91,56+00, 59+00,62+07, and 66+35)
Plan Sheet 40: Station 29+58 - revise note to read: 1 - 16"x6" tapping sleeve
1- 6" gate valve
35 LF 6" water line
1 - FH.
Abandon existing water valve and plug existing 6"stub-out.
Plan Sheet 41: Station 31 + 99 - revise note to read: 1 - 16"x6" tapping sleeve
1- 6" gate valve
37 LF 6" water line
1 - FH.
You should note the locations where irrigation will be in conflict ~d need to be relocated.
Add note 'Contractor is to relocate misc. irrigation meters or valves as required' to the IRGVs or
meters located at ~Stations 24+00 Lt., 24+90 Lt., 26+ 15 Lt., 29+90 Lt., 32+40 Lt.
All through the water ~d sewer adjustments, notes are provided that read "proposed water
lowering". Have you verified the location of the existing water line ~d does it need to be
lowered in all cases or are we just providing a generic pay item?
Was the location of the existing water line ver~fied?
Sheet WS-4
33. The proposed fire hydr~t relocation at Sta. 50+22 appears to have ~ incorrect length. The
length should be closer to 30 feet ~d it will require a tap into the existing 16" water line.
Addressed
Sheet DA-I
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.
Addressed - DA 19C eliminated
35. All calculations should be provided for the drainage areas, i.e., time of concentration, runoff
coefficient, the intensity, the total runoff, etc.
Addressed - Plan Sheet 45 added
Sheet SD-I
36. Generally, it appears that you are trying to stay in strict conform~ce 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
5
draft
of pipe to pick up approximately 3 to 4 cfs. It appears in most cases that that single inlet ~d
hundreds of feet of pipe could be eliminated ~d the street would still have capacity ~d
approximately 7-8 feet of dry paving before the next inlet.
Addressed
37. On all ~orm drains, the hydraulic grade line, the 'q', pipe capacity, etc. should be provided. At
best this is ~ incomplete submittal on drainage design.
Addressed
Sheet SD-2
38. My recommendation is to eliminate the inlet at Sta. 8+50, ~d the 550 feet of21" RCP associated
with it.
Addressed ~ inlet and pipe eliminated
Sheet SD-3
39. Because the drainage pl~s 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 ~d the 21" ~d 18"
RCP's associated with those inlets. It appears that those inlets could be eliminated in their entirety
along with the pipe. Please reevaluate.
Addressed - inlet and pipe eliminated
Sheet SD-5
40. Need to insure that there is adequate room at the southwest comer of Royal ~d Bethel for the
proposed traffic signal pole.
Addressed ~ radius changed from 40' to 35'.
Sheet SD-6
41. It appears that the inlet at Sta. 31+73 ~d the approximately 273" of 21" RCP pipe could be
eliminated from Line C.
Addressed - inlet and pipe eliminated
Sheet SD-9
42. It appears that the inlet at Sta. 50+00 ~d the approximately 400" of 21" RCP pipe could be
eliminated.
Addressed - inlet and pipe eliminated
Sheet SD-IO
43. It appears that the inlets at Sta. 58+50 ~d Sta. 59+00 on Line D could be eliminated, along with
lateral D3.
Addressed - inlets and pipe eliminated
Sheet SD-ll
44. The inlets at Sta. 61 +00 ~d Sta. 61 +50 probably should be 8 or 10 foot in size, not 6 foot.
6
draft
Addressed
45. Reevaluate the proposed low point at Sta. 63+00. The driveway location ~d inlet location could
be a probl~ that creates standing water at that location.
Elevations shown- indicate drive will drain to inlet.
Sheet SD-12
46. All laterals should have the appropriate drainage information ~d hydraulic grade lines shown.
Also, all sewer line, water line, existing utility crossings, etc. should be shown in the profile view of
all laterals ~d main lines.
The water line is the only utility shown- sewer line is below profile elevations. There was not
any information added on drainage and hydraulic grade line.
Sheet SD-15
47. Please comment as to why we are proposing to r~ove approximately 107 feet of the existing
5x1O box culvert ~d relaying it on a different ~gle. It appears that the exi~g box culvert could
remain along with the existing headwall ~d we could add the three box culverts immediately
north. Please reevaluate ~d comment.
Addressed
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 ~d all appropriate drainage information ~d hydraulic
grade lines.
Drainage information (grade, grade breaks) and hydraulic data not added to plan sheets.
49. There is ~ exi~ing wye inlet on the Minyards site that connects to the existing box, please show it
in the pl~ view.
Replaced by curb inlet in Minyard's parking lot.
Sheet SD-16
50. Please provide the center line street stationing on all pl~s.
Addressed
51. At approximately Sta. 8+30 of your proposed 5 x 10 box culverts, the pl~s show a PI in the
existing 5 x 10 box culvert. If there is a PI in the exi~ing box culvert, there will more th~ likely be
one in the proposed three box culverts. This should be verified ~d shown correctly in the pl~
VIew.
Record drawing for the existing box culvert have a PI (J 019'32" Bend R) approximately 792
from the end of the open channel. Your plans have a PI (001 '33" Bend L) at 941. 78 feet from
the end of the open channel. Please check.
Sheet SD-18
52. The pl~s for the existing 5 x 10 box culvert show ~ existing pipe ~d wye inlet at the southwest
comer of Freeport Pkwy ~d Bethel Rd. Please show that in the pl~ view.
Addressed
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 r~oved. Based on the pl~s for that existing 5 x 10 box culvert, it appears that it
could remain ~d coexist with the proposed three 5 x 10 box culverts. Please reevaluate this.
7
draft
There is no need to be removing portions of the existing box culvert if it c~ be salvaged in its
existing location.
Addressed
Sheet SD-20-SD-2I
54. Show the existing sewer line, manholes, ~d storm outfalls in the pl~ ~d profile view.
Not addressed
Sheet TCP-l
55. In the construction phasing you are showing to phase the construction for the first driveway ~
of Royal L~e 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 t~dem i.e., one be constructed in its entirety, while the other is left
open in its entirety ~d then vice versa for the next phase. The third driveway could be phased half
at a time.
Not addressed
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 ~d 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.
Ramps were removed Will send signal plans to Streets for review and comment.
Sheet L-I
57. In the l~dscape 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-I
58. Label Royal Lane and Bethel Road, show the north arrow, show correct scales, ~d show
the elevations at the top and bottom of wall. What happens with Lateral L-B. Is h~drail
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.
Addressed
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.
8
draft
Addressed
Following a review of the plans, the following comments are offered for consideration.
General
1. The city has a new set of construction st~dards, ~d references to old st~dards will need to be
revised.
Pl~ Sheets 9 - 23:
Note 1. See City of Coppell St~dard Construction Details Paving Sheets 2020 ~d 2025 for Left
Turn L~e Details.
Note 3. See City ofCoppell St~dard Construction Details Storm, Drainage, ~d Sheets 6010 ~d
6030 (1-4), for Manhole ~d Curb Inlet Details.
Pl~ Sheet 22:
Section A-A. #3 Bars on 18" Both Ways per City ofCoppell Std. Construction Details on Sheet
2020.
Dowel ~d Grout #3 Bars on 18" Centers into Existing Pavement.
PI~ Sheets 24 - 25:
Note 2. Contractor to Install Conduit for Signalization per City of Coppell St~dard Construction
Details, Paving, Sheet 3095, per Conduit Detail.
PI~ Sheet 38:
Station 10+75 - Install Air & Vacuum - Air Release Valve (per City ofCoppell Std. Con~. Detail
4100(1-2) & 28 LF Air Vent Pipe. These sheets reference a 2" blow-off valve-please verity that is
the size you w~t.
PI~ Sheets 38 - 44:
Note 1. See City of Coppell St~dard Construction Details Water, Sheet 4200, for Water Main
Lowering Detail.
PI~ Sheets 47 - 56:
Refer to City of Coppell Standard Construction details Storm Drain Curb Inlets Sheets 6030(1-4)
for Inlet Details Unless Otherwise Noted.
PI~ Sheets 85 - 86
Note 1. Inlet Top & Walls to be constructed per City ofCoppell Inlet Detail 6030 (1-4).
2. PI~ Sheets 9-23: In m~y locations the radius of the drive is shown within the crosshatch for the
pavers ~d is not readable. On PI~ Sheets 18-22 there is a line shown in the profile that is not
labeled - it is probably the flow line ofthe existing box culvert. Needs to be labeled or removed.
3. Plan Sheets 21-22: The owner of Duke-Freeport Addition Lot 2, Block A ~d Duke-Freeport
Addition Lot 1, Block A indicated that the right-of-way dedicated for Bethel Road overlapped :t
6.67' into the existing 10-foot GTE Easement. There is only :t 2.33' of easement remaining outside
of the right-of-way. Your plap.s show a 10-foot GTE Easement outside of the right-of-way.
Please verifY ~d correct as necessary.
4. PI~ Sheets 47-56: In the January 14, 2003 review comments, it was noted that laterals would be
connected with prefabricated wyes as opposed to field connections ~d to consider using
prefabricated pipe connections as opposed to concrete collars. Please correct these sheets as
necessary ~d show all pertinent information.
Existing water line is mislabeled as 15" - correct to show 16".
9
draft
5. L~dscape Pl~s: Use stamped concrete in the medi~ noses instead of brick pavers. Need the
irrigation pl~ to send to Parks and Recreation for review. Four-inch conduit is usually provided
from medi~ nose to medi~ nose - five foot past the stamped concrete. Show location ~d size of
service tap into the existing water line.
6. Need to show the location where the electric service will connect to the streetlights - provide 2"
conduit. Coordinate with TXU to determine the location of the connection ~d any requirements
for installing conduit, h~dholes, etc.
Plan Sheet 4
1. Note 8. Since the imported fill is subsidiary to the unclassified excavation, show ~ estimated
qu~tity for the imported fill.
2. Note 17. All concrete for construction shall be Class lA', 6.0 sacks of cement per cubic yard, ~d a
compressive strength of3,600 psi at 28 days.
3. Note 25. Add the following: Any facility that does not conform to ADA requir~ents shall be
removed ~d replaced at Contractor's expense.
4. Note 40. 'Not' is misspelled.
Plan Sheet 12
1. The fire hydr~t symbol located at Station 18+00 is on top of necessary information making it
unreadable.
Plan Sheet 18
1. Ch~ge the curb line to a solid dark line ~d the box culvert lines to the dashed line.
Plan Sheets 38-39
1. The proposed water line extension, from Station 17+75 to Station 7+00, needs to be PVC ~d not
cement lined ductile iron pipe.
Plan Sheet 44
1. The manhole is located at Station 64+16.74 ~d not at Station 65+ 16.74
Plan Sheet 48
1. TxDot detail sheet for the inlet located at Station 26+50.09 is not included in the plan sheets.
Plan Sheets 51-56
1. Sheet 51: Inlet C 1-28- 30 not shown in the profile view.
2. Sheet 52: Inlets CI-198-21 and CI-20B-22 not shown in the profile view.
3. Sheet 53: Sta. 10+88.96 L-C = Sta. 0+00 LAT C-7.
4. Sheet 54: Inlet CI-35A not shown in the profile view. There is a manhole shown in the profile at::!::
60+00 (centerline stationing) - PI~ Sheet 43 shows the manhole at Station 59+51.98. The size of
the sewer line is shown to ch~ge at this manhole - this disagrees with Pl~ Sheet 43. Sta.
00+00.00 L-D - FL. EL. 506.79 (27") not (33") as shown.
5. Sheet 55: There is a manhole shown in the profile at ::!:: 55+00 - PI~ Sheet 43 does not show a
manhole at that location.
10
draft
Plan Sheets 57-58
1. LAT A3: Sta.OO=OO.OO Lat A-3 = Sta. 2+64.25
2. LAT D2: Sta.OO=OO.OO Lat D-2 = Sta. 3+51.31
Plan Sheets 59-63
1. Sheet 59: Should the PI shown at Station 1+06.72 be removed. The stationing ofthe pl~ ~d the
profile views does not match up.
2. Show all of the pertinent drainage information on all of the sheets including the grade, the grade
breaks, the flow capacity, the velocity ~d the hydraulic grade line. Label the box culvert in profile
View.
Plan Sheet 80
1. Note 2. The contractor will purchase ~d install the signs not the city.
Plan Sheets 81-83
1. The TxDOT Pedestri~ H~drail Type PR2 sheet is not included in the pl~s. Need to replace
'XX' with this sheet number in several locations on each sheet.
Plan Sheet 92
1. Move the pull boxes from under the proposed sidewalks ~d ramps.
The channel pl~ ~d profile sheets will need to be completed once we receive the USACE permit. The
sheets in the plans will need to match the permit.
11