Lorimer Road Project Recap (2014-April 2017) and Forecast

PDF (City of Raleigh internal document, secured through a Public Records request) —

Lorimer Road Pre-Design Notes and Schedule

.  .  .

Lorimer Road (2014-0012) Summary:


Construct a 27’ back-to-back street section with a 5’ wide sidewalk and 6’ setback on the west side and a 3.5’ shoulder on the east side including curb, gutter, drains, and paving for an approximate distance of 2940 lf (from: Kaplan Drive…to: Garland Drive)…APPROVED SEPTEMBER 1, 2015.

  • Approved by Council on September 1, 2015
  • Assessments shall apply at the rate of $32/lf.
  • Properties abutting the street to be improved shall be connected with water mains, sewer mains, and gas mains (if gas mains available).
  • The petition was passed with 70% resident approval.
  • Note: survey letter sent out called for 6’ sidewalk…Council approved 5’ sidewalk



Construct a sidewalk on the east side to match existing sidewalk (approximate length = 217 lf) on Woodlinks Drive and tie into new sidewalk that will be constructed on Lorimer Road.

  • Approved by Council on November 3, 2015
  • Estimated cost of construction = $21,700
  • Note: existing sidewalk ends in middle of power line easement and has a setback of 4.5’…Jimmy said this was okay because the petition approved by Council says to “match existing”
  • Note: this project will be included in the contract for Lorimer Road project but there will be no distinction between the two projects in the contract…only that there are two separate petitions


  • Posted speed limit = 25 mph
  • From: Paving Construction Petition Project Report
    • o R/W = 60’
    • o Estimate total cost=$1,730,000 (paving=$1,628,000…sidewalk=$101,250…utilities=N/A)
    • o Staff comments…Public Utilities (no concerns), Planning (no comments), Transportation Field Services (no concerns), Storm Water (no major issues)


E-mail Correspondences:

  • 05/22/14: Donetta Powell
    • o Request for staff comments
  • 05/22/14: Chris McGee
    • o “I have no comments”
  • 06/02/14: Eric Lamb
    • o “I think this can fall under the Neighborhood Yield category given the number of units along the street…that would result in the use of a 27’ B-B section…how does sidewalk factor into the proposed petition?”
  • 06/07/14: Christine Darges
    • o “this petition is like any other…it is not due to the UDO requirements…the only difference is the new standard of a 6’ sidewalk instead of a 5’ sidewalk applies now as noted in our new street typology and sidewalk standards…there is no retrofit obligation or requirement for neighborhoods and streets to comply per the UDO…outside the petition process, all public street improvements are obtained through the development process as usual or a city initiated program…I have no specific comments for this location”
  • 06/10/14: Mukund Moghe
    • o “the entire pavement section may need rehabilitation due to its present condition and construction activities for the project…substantial embankment and cuts will be required for the widening…additional right-of-way may be needed…extensive clearing and grubbing will be needed…a storm drainage system will be needed to collect and drain the run-off to stream…condition of existing underground utilities is unknown…this may have to be checked for their integrity”
  • 09/10/14: Donetta Powell
    • o To Russ Talley (PU Capital Improvement Management)…requesting Public Utilities to review this street for existing conditions of utilities…apparently no response from original request from Donetta (05/22/14)
  • 09/10/14: Kevin Boyer
  • o Much of the existing roadside ditches and swales are vegetated…a substantial portion of the first flush street runoff probably infiltrates or is filtered in the ditches and swales.
  • o I observed no locations along the project length appropriate for BMPs.
  • o There are sections of roadside ditch that are actively “down-cutting”, less than 10% of the total ditch length…these could be repaired and stabilized (i.e. light rip-rap, cobbles, check dams, vegetation, education of residents about mowing, other techniques) on a spot-basis, as we are pursuing on the Laurel Hills Stormwater management study with Hazen and Sawyer.
  • o There are also ditch sections that appear to have “down-cut” in the past and have been stabilized (also less than 10% of the total length)
  • o I suspect that what the property owners actually want is just sidewalk, not curb and gutter, and that they generally like the character of the neighborhood without curb and gutter (I have heard this sentiment repeatedly in Laurel Hills)…but they correctly have been told that, per City policy, they cannot get sidewalk without also getting curb and gutter…also that sometimes curb and gutter must be installed with the sidewalk because of R/W width constraints.
  • o The urban runoff burden on Bushy Creek would be lessened to the extent that (1) sidewalk could be installed without also installing curb and gutter, (2) curb and gutter and sidewalk could be installed on only one side of the street, and/or (3) stormwater BMPs could be installed along with curb and gutter and sidewalk
  • o Drainage:
    • o The whole project drains to Bushy Creek…about a third from the NW and two-thirds from the SE
    • o Based on topo, roadside ditches appear to receive runoff mostly from the Lorimer R/W, parts of a few cross-street R/W, and a narrow width of the yards parallel to the R/W…most yard areas drain along other paths to Bushy Creek
    • o A significant exception to the above is the ditch on the south side of Lorimer to Merwin to 30’ west of Merwin…it looks like this ditch carries runoff from 30 acres or more
    • o I doubt there is street flooding along the project length (too steep)…I imagine Bushy Creek can flood at the Lorimer culvert, given the large impervious areas upstream along Western Boulevard and the Beltline
  • o Water Quality Benefits/Burdens:
    • o Because moch of the existing roadside ditches and swales are vegetated, it’s reasonable to think that a substantial portion of the first flush street runoff would infiltrate or be filtered…the street’s steepness tends to work against infiltrating and filtering
    • o To the extent that curb and gutter and sidewalk are constructed along the project length, time of concentration and filtering will decrease, and runoff volume and peak flow will increase, all contributing to increasing the urban runoff burden on Bushy Creek…we would need assumptions and calculations to quantify the increased burden
    • o I observed no locations along the project that appeared appropriate for storm water BMPs…other than R/W, I doubt there is City-owned property (I did not check records)
    • o A BMP that could be incorporated into a curb and gutter design within the R/W is “Filterras.” I know of none yet in Raleigh, but they have been approved in Raleigh via a variance for a store on Capital Blvd…Durham, Fayetteville, Swansboro, and Edenton each have several “Filterras.”…they are popping up like dandelions in the Chesapeake Bay basin
  • o (unknown date): Mark Senior (Acting Manager, Stormwater) to Scott Bryant…stated “hey Scott, since this is more future planning related than drainage assistance related, I’m suggesting your group take the lead on this but I would like Kevin Boyer to also look at this from a WQ perspective…If we lose some WQ benefits as the result of adding curb, maybe there’s a way we can recoup some…please take a look at this one and let me know your thoughts in regard to WQ impacts and possible opportunities”
  • 09/10/14: Daniel King
    • o “the only correction I would make to the response from our Roadway group is that a “Neighborhood Local” street section calls for a 31’ B-B street rather than the 27’ B-B mentioned in their comments”…Eric Lamb’s e-mail (10/03/14) states that Daniel King is aware that Lorimer will be classified as “Neighborhood Yield”
  • 09/18/14: Aaron Brower
    • o “I have checked with my staff and we are not aware of any issues with the utilities in this area and there are no main breaks nor sanitary sewer overflows and the infrastructure is around 50 years old so we should be good”
  • 09/19/14: Russ Talley
    • o To Donetta… “please incorporate the existing sanitary sewer and water mains (map attached) along with their associated appurtenances into you design and installation for the proposed upgrades of Lorimer Road…if you need additional information, please let me know”
  • 10/03/14: Eric Lamb
    • o “I confirm the street classification as “neighborhood yield”…I have spoken with Daniel King who agrees with this assessment…therefore, the Roadway’s recommendation of a 27’ B-B would not require a variance as this is the standard for a “neighborhood yield”
  • 10/22/14: Carl Dawson
    • o approved of the variance to omit the 5’ utility easement, omit sidewalk on one side and grade the berm at 3.5’ wide
  • 03/15/15: Donetta
    • o To resident (Carolyn Parker, 1218 Lorimer Road) regarding about existing plantings that will be impacted
  • 03/31/15: Donetta
    • o To Don Munn (resident) addressing his concerns of his property at 1420 Lorimer Road and the 5’-7’ elevation change that sidewalk where sidewalk will be placed
  • 04/15/15: Ken Dunn
    • o Responds to question from Donetta regarding resident’s concern with allowing a second driveway on their property at 1300 Lorimer Road…one driveway (closer to creek) is currently paved while the other driveway (furthest from creek) is gravel and in a dedicated easement…both driveways have existing culvert pipes in the ditch…note: I asked Jimmy (12/28/15) and he said that if there is an existing driveway there now (note: it has an existing culvert pipe), a new apron will be constructed for it and since the property that driveway serves does not have frontage on Lorimer Road, the property owner (that driveway serves) will not be assessed for this work
  • 04/16/15: Donetta
    • o Responses to Jane Fenn
  • 07/13/15: Richard Kelly
    • o To Ruffin Hall (City Manager)… “administrative design adjustments approved by the Public Works Director include the following”
      • Retrofit the proposed improvements within the existing 60’ R/W
      • Omit the sidewalk requirement on the east side
      • Omit the 5’ utility easements, maintenance strip (east side), planting area (east side), and R/W requirements
      • Funds are currently unavailable in the Paving Petition Program FY16 fund…if approved, allocation will need to be approved in the FY17 budget for design and construction
    • 08/05/15: Donna Burford (resident)
      • o Wants to be assured there will be ample room on the east side of the street for a future sidewalk
    • 08/12/15: Jimmy Upchurch
      • o To Donetta referencing letters from Kay Crowder and Jane Fenn
    • 08/19/15: Jimmy Upchurch
      • o To Nick Sadler regarding e-mail from Ben Kuhn (attorney) who’s concerns include: (1) the inordinate and unfair impact it has on certain owners, (2) the lack of any need for road/sidewalk improvements along this portion of Lorimer Road, (3) the unsuitability of the area for road/sidewalk improvements, (4) the negative impact to the character of the area, streetscape, and environmental amenities along Lorimer, (5) potential impacts to the existing built environment along Lorimer and the potential increased costs arising therefrom, (6) the cost to those impacted in terms of assessments to be made, (7) the cost to City of Raleigh taxpayers at a time when revenues from various sources have been taken away by the State, and (7) the potential ramifications to any owner who is unable to afford to pay the assessments made against their property for any of these improvements
    • 08/20/15: Chris Johnson
      • o To Donetta regarding the “Power Point” presentation to City Council
    • 09/11/15: Chris Johnson
      • o To Donetta regarding meeting with Kay Crowder
    • 09/14/15: Erin Salmon (resident)…invitation to neighborhood meeting on 09/21/15
      • o Concerns included: loss of plants and trees, impact on traffic conditions, pedestrian and cyclist safety, change to street aesthetic, Bushy Creek Watershed issues, price, inequity of project impact on concerned residents and properties, property values, pros and cons of minor residential road vs. residential road designation, impact on neighborhood crime levels, bus stop location
    • 09/18/15: Donna Burford (resident)…references Kay Crowder (City Council member) would be a help at public meeting at the Presbyterian Church
    • 09/29/15: Louis Buonpane
      • o “please refer all contacts and requests for information to Nick Sadler…Nick is assigned to work with Kay Crowder whose district this project is located in…staff should be focused on executing the projects and policies that the City Council has adopted”
    • 10/01/15: Louis Buonpane
      • o “staff is not to attend this (Presbyterian Church public meeting)…we will interact with the citizens on behalf of the district council member”
    • 10/26/15: Jimmy Upchurch
      • o This e-mail was to himself…includes all staff comments for petition
    • 12/18/15: Nick Sadler
      • o “all communications with residents should be forwarded to me”
      • o Question: Jane Fenn wants cost estimates to justify placing sidewalk is more economically feasible to be placed on west side…DO I NEED TO PREPARE A COST ESTIMATE…CAN’T DO WITHOUT SURVEY AND ALIGNMENT



  • Preliminary cost estimate can be found in “Documents/Staff Comments” folder
  • As per Richard Homovec (surveyor, 12/23/15 at Christmas brunch), the Lorimer Road survey could be completed by February 1 but since other projects will begin construction in January, survey completion should not be expected until March 1, 2016
  • As per the “Walnut Creek Basin Study” report for the City of Raleigh prepared by Dewberry Engineers (February, 2013), they state “to eliminate finished floor flooding in structures at Bushy Branch, it is required that the existing 15’x6’ RCBC under Lorimer Road be replaced with two 12’x6’ RCBC.”
    • o Note: it is unclear they are referring to flooding of structures on Lorimer Road since attached table states that the structure at 1300 Lorimer Rd. experiences only yard flooding from existing conditions during a 100-yr storm.
  • Need to find out if there are existing gas mains and fiber optic lines in the area (didn’t see any during field visit) and need to find out if PSNC or fiber company has plans to install lines here
  • Question: will we need to widen Lorimer Road (lengthen culvert) across Bushy Creek to accommodate 5’ wide sidewalk with 6’ setback or would we shift sidewalk to be just behind curb…would we want to widen other side for future sidewalk placement?
  • Note: send Fire Department plans to see if they want any hydrants in new locations?
  • Note: as per e-mail (12/07/15) from Jason Myers, Kevin Boyer, Jen Baker, they were wondering if anything should be incorporated into this project to accommodate the “Walkable Watershed Program”
  • Note: Design Manual (pg. 12) / Engineering Specifications states that “curb radii are to be between 5’ – 10’…since we are calling for 6’ setback, driveway curb radii will be 6’?
  • Note: Design Manual (pg. 12) / Engineering Specifications states that a “neighborhood yield is an unstriped two-way street accommodating parallel parking on one side…as per Detail T-10.10 which calls for the parking type to be “parallel staggered,” apparently residents must know to not park across from each other so that “no parking” signs should not be necessary?



  • Create Limits Map: complete
  • Provide Owner List: complete (by Assessments)
  • Survey Notification Letter: complete
  • Utility Markings: called in by Richard Homovec and will be marked by 01/13/16.
  • Internal Kick-Off Meeting: complete
  • Deed and Map Research (by Survey):
  • Field Survey (by Survey):
  • Office Process (by Survey):
  • Verify Survey and Forward Information to CADD:
    • o Verify that survey is complete (i.e. total area requested is surveyed, all utilities have been picked up including water valves, water meters, back-flow preventer assemblies, sewer manholes and clean-outs, power poles/lines/guys and anchors, light poles, storm drains, driveway culverts, driveway surface limits, outline of existing 5’x16’ culvert including headwalls and wingwalls, existing easements)
    • o Note: think residential properties only need backflow preventers if they have irrigation or fire sprinkler systems…otherwise, there are check-valves at water meter
    • o Question: are existing drain pipes and channels crossing residential yards inside City easements (Richard Homevec said they are not always in City easements)…if pipes or channels are worked on, will they require easements?…since the channels are shown and defined as “channels” on I-MAPS, don’t we need these called out on the plans?
    • o Question: there riparian buffer zones (appears like 25’, 50’ each side of stream) at Bushy Creek?…not shown on I-MAPS…need to determine requirements (i.e. no clearing or ditching inside buffer zones)?…note: there are existing ditches inside buffer zones 1 and 2 (parcels #20, #21), existing driveway at parcel #21 is totally inside BZ-2, and Onslow Road is inside BZ-2
    • o Question: do we want to put any effort (or put special provisions in contract to deal with conflicts during construction) into locating sewer laterals along Lorimer Rd. where we know new storm drain pipes will be installed since they might be competing for the same vertical space…note: wait to get inverts on existing sanitary pipes to see if they may be deep enough to go under storm drains?
    • o Note: sent e-mail (12-07-15) to David Jackson (City Utilities Supervisor) asking for verification of existing water and sewer lines materials and conditions inside project limits…no response yet
    • o Note: need to determine what black pipe running between joists of existing box culvert is…6” cast or ductile iron
    • o Need to determine what test well is for (4” cap in pavement)
  • Proposed Typical & Alignments:
    • o Does Survey set existing alignment centered up between existing R/W lines and if this fits well with existing features, will that be existing alignment or do they determine existing crown and call that existing alignment?

PRE-DESIGN COMPLETE: time required = two weeks…end of 3rd week of March (assume survey complete by 1st week of March)



  • Verify Base Map: by Cadd Services
  • Design Alignments:
    • o Question: if alignment is centered in R/W, this locates back of sidewalk at 24.5’ from roadway centerline…don’t we want 2’ (minimum) beyond back of sidewalk for hinge point of embankment or cut (sloped at 2% towards sidewalk)?…leaves 3.5’ to R/W
    • o Question: do we not want to center road in R/W for placement of future sidewalk on east side…including 2’ space behind sidewalk noted above, the most we could laterally shift roadway is 3’…doesn’t seem worth considering shift
  • Layout Sheets: by Cadd Services
  • Basemap Cleanup: by Cadd Services
  • Existing Lane Markings: by Cadd Services
  • Existing Cross-Section/Profiles: by Cadd Services
  • Review Comments:
    • o Question: I review plans and then review with Talal (i.e. anybody else involved)?
  • Proposed Design Features: by Cadd Services
  • Corridor Modeling: by Cadd Services
  • Apply Design Templates: by Cadd Services
  • Preliminary Site Design:
    • o Question: what does this involve?
  • Preliminary Utilities:
    • o I determine preliminary routings based on existing lines
  • QC/QA Review Meeting:
    • o think only QC is intended…who is included in meeting…I can perform QC and review with Talal
  • Prepare Construction Limits: by Cadd Services
  • Review Construction Plans: by Cadd Services
  • Typical Sheet: by Cadd Services
  • Cover Sheet: by Cadd Services
  • Review 25% plans with D/C Staff:
    • o don’t think any inside staff will review except me…I can list comments and review with Talal

25% DESIGN PLANS COMPLETE: time required = six weeks (includes CAD time)…end of 1st week of May



  • Set Staff Review Meeting:
    • o Must refer to City staff…will need list of staff to invite
  • Review Comments from 25% Staff Submittal:
    • o allow two weeks for comments to return…allow four weeks for review and changes

25% REVIEW COMPLETE: time required = six weeks…end of 1st week of June



  • Draft Letter to Property Owners:
    • o Need to determine location or is it held in Council Chamber?
  • Obtain Property Owners Address List:
    • o Who from City attends?
  • Public Meeting Notification/Mailing:
    • o Send out two weeks in advance?
  • Public Meeting Map: by Cadd Services
  • City Managers Meeting:
    • o What is purpose/who attends?
  • Public meeting:
    • o would this be held at 7:00 pm?

25% DESIGN/PUBLIC MEETING COMPLETE: time required = two weeks…end of 3rd week of June



  • Utilities Coordination Start:
    • o I work with Vincent?
  • Address Comments from 25% Staff Meeting:
    • o two weeks
    • o I address comments from Talal (if no other staff involved)?
  • Final Drainage:
    • o Eight weeks
  • Erosion Control:
    • o Two weeks
  • Pavement Markings/Signing Plans:
    • o one week
  • Easements and R/W:
    • o two weeks (determine grading easements, R/W, TCE based on proposed grades for silt fence, tree protection fence, and denuded areas)

65% DESIGN COMPLETE: time required = sixteen weeks…end of 3rd week of October



  • List Letter Mailed:
    • o What is this?
  • Public Meeting Notification: by Administration
  • Public Meeting Map: by Cadd Services
  • Proposed Design Model: by Cadd Services
  • Traffic Control Plans:
    • o two weeks
  • Utility Plans – Public:
    • o two weeks
  • Utility Plans – Private:
    • o two weeks
  • City Manager’s Meeting:
    • o What is purpose?…who attends?
  • Public Meeting:
    • o Same mailing list and location as 25% meeting?

PLANS PRODUCTION 65% COMPLETE: time required = six weeks…end of 1st week of December




  • Submit Plans to DSC:
    • o two weeks
  • Staff Review Revisions:
    • o two weeks
  • Environmental Agencies Revisions:
    • o two weeks

REVIEW 65% PLANS COMPLETE: time required = six weeks…end of 3rd week of January



  • Location of Public Meeting:
  • Draft Letter to Property Owners:
  • Obtain Property Owners Address List:
  • Public Meeting Notification/Mailing:
  • Hold Public Meeting:

PUBLIC MEETING COMPLETE: time required = two weeks…end of 3rd week of February



  • As per committee’s schedule
  • Question: any other committees involved?
  • Question: shouldn’t this be held earlier in process?

SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETINGS (BPAC) COMPLETE: time required = one week…end of 4th week of February



  • Agenda Item Notification: by Administration
  • Generate Notification List: by Assessments
  • Notification letter: by Administration
  • Public Hearing Map: by Cadd Services
  • Public Hearing Map Review:
  • Design Presentation:
  • Public Hearing Backup Documents:
  • Public Hearing:

PUBLIC HEARING/DESIGN PRESENTATION COMPLETE: time required = three weeks…end of 3rd week of March



  • Review Easements:
  • Preliminary Plat/Exhibit: by Survey
  • Plat Review:
  • Easement Revisions:
  • Revised Preliminary Plat/Exhibit: by Survey
  • Submit Plat – City: by Survey
  • Address Comments: by Survey
  • Check Request: by Survey
  • Final Plat Exhibit: by Survey

DESIGN – SURVEY…PLATS/EXHIBITS COMPLETE: time required = three weeks…end of 2nd week of April



  • Prepare Real Estate Hand-Off Package (CC-Assessments):
  • Initial Property Owner Contacts:
  • Create Assessment Estimate: by Assessments
  • Settlements/Condemnations Files:

REAL ESTATE DOCUMENTS COMPLETE: time required = two weeks…end of 1st week of May



  • Prepare Final Plans:
  • Submit Plans to City:
  • Staff Review Revisions:
  • Environmental Agencies Review Revisions:
  • Prepare Bidding/Contract Documents:
  • Prepare Final Quantities:
  • Prepare Final Cost Estimates:

FINAL DESIGN COMPLETE: time required = four weeks…end of 1st week of June



  • City Approval:
  • Environmental Agencies Approval:

FINAL REVIEW COMPLETE: time required = four weeks…end of 1st week of July



  • Survey Digital Deliverables: by Cadd Services
    • o What is this?
  • Survey/Inspection Plan Deliverables: by Cadd Services
    • o What is this?

FINAL DELIVERABLES COMPLETE: time required = two to four weeks



  • Advertise on Planscope/City Website: two weeks…first week of August
  • Pre-bid Meeting:
  • Bid Opening: seems like administration task
  • Bid Tabulation: by Administration
  • Contractor Verification/Background: seems like administration task
  • Award Contract/Agenda item: seems like administration task
  • Update Database/Finance: by Assessments
  • Contract Execution: by Administration

BIDDING/CONTRACTING COMPLETE: time required = four weeks…first week of September



  • Preconstruction Meeting:

CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION COMPLETE: time required = one week…October 1, 2017

.  .  .  .  .  .