| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
05/17/2018
|
05/16/2018
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
11/03/2017
|
11/02/2017
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
05/16/2017
|
05/09/2017
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
05/16/2017
|
05/09/2017
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
04/21/2017
|
04/21/2017
|
|
|
Sue Pyles, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Provide a separate Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for each set of plans (street/storm, sanitary, water).
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Revise the storm sewer items and quantities in the Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs to match the information included in the plans.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The unit costs for the items “ADA Sidewalk Ramp” and Seeding/Mulching/Fertilizing” appear low. Please verify and revise if needed.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The 100-yr Flood Elevation shown on Sheets C.200 & C.202 do not match the 100-yr Flood Elevation shown on Sheet C.208. Revise as needed.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Show truncated domes on the sidewalk ramps in Plan view throughout the plan set.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.201: The 100-yr WSE is shown as ####. Please revise.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheets C.206 & C.206: There appear to be two “County Line Road” labels that are overlapping each other. Revise for clarity.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.205: Include a callout for “End Construction” in the SW Grindstone Dr. Profile view.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.207: Include an ADA Ramp Plan for the mid-block ramp near Lot 43.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.207: Please include all information required by Sec 5304.8 and meet design requirements shown in Tables LS-5 and LS-6. Do not include landings in the sidewalk design.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.208: It is difficult to identify the limits of the 97.09’ and 66.96’ dimensions along the south side of the detention basin. Please revise for clarity.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheets C.300 & C.304: Remove the contours in the vicinity of Lot 81.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheets C.301-C.304: The lengths shown in the Profile view don’t match the stationing shown. Check and revise lengths and/or stationing as required.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.301: Revise the 10 yr HGL and 100 yr HGL leaders to point to the correct lines in the Storm 1 Profile view.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheets C.305-C.306: Revise the Storm Sewer Tables to match the information shown in the plans, including revisions included in these comments.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
04/21/2017
|
04/18/2017
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
03/06/2017
|
03/06/2017
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please see Planning comments related to Alabaster. Pavement marking plans should also be revised based on these comments.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
03/06/2017
|
03/06/2017
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The County Line Improvements plans are separate from this review, and are being treated as a separate submittal. The scheduled deadline for comments is Mar. 17, 2017 based on the submittal date.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.001: The "Index of Sheets" does not appear to match the existing plan sheets. For instance, Sheet C.208 states this is a "Intersection Details and ADA Ramp Layout", but in fact this is a "Detention Basin and BMP Plan".
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A sheet covering intersection design and ADA-accessible ramp design was missing from this particular plan set.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.001: Sheet C.207 does not exist within the plan set.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.001: No standard detail sheet(s) for curb inlets, junction boxes, or field inlets was provided. A dedicated sheet(s) must be provided, and the "Index of Sheets" updated to reflect the new sheet(s).
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Note Concerning ADA-accessible Ramps: The ADA-accessible ramp detail sheet was missing from this submittal. Please ensure that all ADA-accessible ramps, regardless of whether they are built during the construction of the subdivision improvements or later, are included in the detail sheet(s). The City of Lee's Summit has adopted the PROWAG standards, and must be followed. Sufficient details must be provided in the design details for all ADA-accessible ramps.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.208: Field inlet 5-2 does not appear to be installed within a "sump". The Master Drainage Plan appears to show the majority of stormwater will bypass this field inlet.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.208: A generic design of the detention basin outlet structure was provided. Please provide a specific design for this outlet structure.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.208: The southern dimension (i.e., 97 feet) of the BMP area does not appear to be correct. The dimension line ends halfway along the length.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.208: The BMP area was not sufficiently detailed in terms of the thickness of the permeable soil layer. Please provide a specific thickness for this feature. In addition, provide sufficient notes that the permeable soil mixture shall be thoroughly mixed on the project site prior to placement.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.301: Storm Line 1 shows a hydraulic grade line which is suspect. This line is directly connected to the detention basin, and as such, it would appear the hydraulic grade line shown on the profile view is too low.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.301: The hydraulic grade line for the 100 year event appears at grade for the field inlets located in the sump condition. This pertains to field inlet 5-5, and 5-6. Section 5600 of the APWA Stormwater Manual requires a minimum of 0.5 feet from any opening to the hydraulic grade line. This does not appear to have been met.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.301: Are you certain the 100 year hydraulic grade line at the end of FES 5-1 is 3 feet higher than the 100 year water surface elevation within the detention basin?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.301: Field inlet 1-2 is shown on the profile view in a confusing manner. It does not appear to be installed within a "sump", and the grade to the west is not clearly defined.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.301: Field inlet 5-2 is called-out as being installed in a sump condition, but it does not appear from the plan view this is the case.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.302: Since Storm Line 1 may have changed due to the previous comments, please update the hydraulic grade line within Storm Line 2.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
12/09/2016
|
12/21/2016
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Cover Sheet: The index references Sheet C.209 as "Pavement Marking Plan". Sheet C.209 is entitled "County Line Road Pavement Marking Plan". The index does not reference the name of the sheet, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to label the sheet and the index to "County Line Road Improvements"?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.051: Where is the "skimmer assembly" being used on the project? Please be specific on the installation of this skimmer assembly, with sufficient notes, dimensions, and other pertinent information.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
All Erosion and Sediment Control Sheets: The lettering is too small to read on half size sets. Please enlarge the lettering so it is legible at half size.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.052: What is the plan for the siltation basin in the northeast corner of the project after construction? Please provide sufficient notes.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.100: The note concerning the installation of sidewalk along the southern tracts should be corrected to state "sidewalk and ADA ramps to the south of Lots 55 and 44 will be constructed with the subdivision improvements." The first note stating "...all sidewalk and ADA ramps are to be installed by individual home builders" should be deleted since it is not correct.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.200: A substandard slope within the swale adjacent to County Line Road is still being shown in the vicinity of SW Alabaster Dr. We are showing 1.25% rather than the minimum 2.0% between contour lines 1013 and 1014.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.200: The sediment basin in the northeast corner of the project is not labelled or detailed. Is this feature to remain after construction? If not, remove the feature from the Master Drainage Plan. If it is to remain after construction, then label it and provide sufficient details on the skimmer assembly, outflow assembly, etc.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.203: Provide notes stating that sidewalk and ADA ramps along the tracts connecting to County Line Rd. at Alabaster Dr. and Grindstone Dr. will be installed along with the subdivision improvements. The notes should be adjacent to the sidewalk, along with a leader pointing to the sidewalk.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.207: Provide notes stating the sidewalk and ADA ramps on Grindstone Dr. and Alabaster Dr. will be installed along with all other subdivision improvements.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.207: Sidewalk and ADA ramp details for Alabaster Dr. suffer from QA/QC issues. No sidewalk is shown (i.e., the linework is missing), and elevations and leaders are shown pointing to nothing.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.208: The flowline of the 24" pipe at the daylight end (i.e., within the detention basin) is shown as 999.15. The flowline elevation in the profile view for section C is shown at 999.15. This contradicts the drawing, which shows a slight slope from the daylight, detention basin side of the pipe, to the inlet side of the detention basin outlet structure.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.208: It appears the southern dimension of the water quality feature is not dimensioned correctly. It appears to call-out 97.09 feet.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.209: This appears to be a schematic drawing rather than an engineering drawing. Please see Traffic Comments for more detailed information regarding the requirements for an adequate traffic improvement plan at County Line Rd.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.301: All of the field inlets for Storm Line 1 are shown "at grade" for field inlets which are designed to be in a sump condition. Please correct.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.301: All of the field inlets for Storm Line 5 are shown "at grade" for field inlets which are designed to be in a sump condition. Please correct.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.301: Storm Line 5 is shown with a hydraulic grade line of approximately 1001. The 100 year water surface elevation within the detention basin is shown as 1006.09 on the Master Drainage Plan. This is a serious discrepancy, and may lead to structure flooding.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
General Comment Concerning All Field Inlets in Sump Condition: If field inlets are to be installed in a sump condition, please show the sump condition on the profile view. As shown, the field inlets are either "at grade", which means the openings are beneath the ground surface, and finally, no sump is shown on the profile view.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.302: The same comments concerning the field inlets pertain to this sheet. All of the field inlets are shown "at grade" (i.e., the tops are "at grade"), and therefore the openings are beneath the ground surface. Finally, no sump is shown where it is called-out.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.302: Insufficient slope is provided between contour line 1013 and 1014 on the west side of Alabaster Dr. near County Line Rd. We calculate a 1.25% slope, which is significantly less than 2.0%.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.303: Field inlets are shown "at grade". See previous comments concerning the field inlets, and the requirement that field inlets in a sump condition be shown with proper grading around the field inlet to create a sump condition.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.303: Please label Amethyst Ln.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.303: The profile view of Storm Line 8 shows two sets of dashed lines for finish grade and proposed grade. Please change the finish grade line to a solid line, and the existing grade line to a dashed line.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Standard details must be provided for the curb inlets, junction boxes, field inlets, and curb and gutter. The Public Works Department is currently in the process of updating their standard details, so these will need to be provided within the plan set for this project.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
General Comment Concerning Plans: The issue with the hydraulic grade line at the discharge point (i.e., in the southwest detention basin) contradicting the 100 year water surface elevation is a significant issue. It is probable that the 100 year water surface elevation of the basin will affect all aspects of the upstream stormwater system. It is for this reason that a thorough analysis of the upstream system should be performed, since the downstream condition (i.e., the 100 year water surface elevation within the detention basin) is more or less "set." It is unknown at this time how to rectify this situation.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
An Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs appeared to be missing.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
12/09/2016
|
12/20/2016
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The plan depicting the eastbound left-turn lane along County Line generally lacks detail and survey information for existing conditions. The turn lane is only required to have a 100' length plus 150' taper (substantially consistent with the northern double yellow line that may or may not require removal). Show the diagonal lines and long lines that will be removed and verify the lane widiths remain 12' typical. May need to show a removal plan and improvement plan for this turn lane. Note the materials for arrows shall be preformed thermoplastic and long lines high build paint, both in accordance with City standards and specifications. Include the City's pavement marking and sign standard details.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
09/28/2016
|
10/06/2016
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The "Macro Storm Water Drainage Study" (hereinafter referred to as "the stormwater report") dated May 20, 2016 still does not match the weirs shown on the plans. Please see the previous comment letter dated July 19, 2016 for further information.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The stormwater report does not appear to show the the stage/storage, culvert/orifice structures, and stage/storage/discharge tables for the 10 and 100 year storm event.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #2 in the previous comment letter dated July 19, 2016. Your response indicated this is a temporary sediment basin. The erosion and sediment control plan does not show this is the case, and in fact, it would appear the erosion and sediment control plan is designed to install gutter buddies on the throats of the field inlets. This will lead to flooding. If these depressed areas are to be used for temporary sediment basins, then show how they will be installed without flooding the lots. Show what is being installed, other than gutter buddies, to limit the amount of sediment leaving the site. The City will not allow the installation of sediment basins that are designed to flood lots within the subdivision.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #7 of the previous comment letter dated July 19, 2016. MBOEs were specified, but there is no caculated 100 year water surface elevation shown adjacent to the field inlets to justify their specification. Please show the calculated 100 year water surface elevation, and show the MBOE at least two (2) feet higher than the 100 year water surface elevation.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #13 of the previous comment letter dated July 19, 2016. The 100 year water surface elevation should be specified for all areas within a sump condition, including field inlets. This was not shown on the Master Drainage Plan, and without it, it is impossible to determine what an appropriate MBOE should be for a particular lot.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #14 of the previous comment letter dated July 19, 2016. A 4' by 4' box is shown, but it would appear this is impossible to construct for a 36" HDPE pipe given the outside diameter of the HDPE pipe, and the required 6" minimum side spacing on the pipe. Also, you are showing Section B with the water quality inlet below grade. How is this going to work?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #15 of the previous comment letter. Horizontal dimenstions are very difficult to determine from the drawing. Please clearly show the dimensions of this water quality feature, along with traditional dimension lines, labeling, etc.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.208: grading on the water quality feature appears flat. A 2% minimum slope should be clearly shown on the plans.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please see comment #20 of the previous comment letter dated July 19, 2016. No hydraulic grade lines were shown for the design storm. Please be aware that if the system is not capable of managing the 100 year event without surcharging, a suitable overflow route is required.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #21 of the previous comment letter dated July 19, 2016. The grading plan was not superimposed on the individual plan views for the various storm line segments.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #22 of the previous comment letter. The plans are not reviewable due to QA/QC issues. There are numerous instances of field inlet tops being at grade, even though openings are specified. There are several instances where two (2) separate proposed grade lines are shown. Field inlet 1-2 is shown as being in a sump condition, when in fact, it appears to be installed higher than the adjacent grade. Overstrike errors are evident on Sheet C.303. Proposed grading is not shown on the individual storm line segments.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #25 of the previous comment letter. This comment referred to the City's opinion that the rip rap would not be sufficient to manage the energy at the end of pipe. No changes were made to the plans. The response requested that the City refer to the calculations. No calculations were provided.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #30 of the previous comment letter dated July 1`9, 2016, This comment related to the specification on the plans of what sidewalks and ADA-accessible ramps would be constructed with this project. Normal convention is to label those sidewalks that will not be constructed with this project as "to be installed by others", or equivalent language. If this is the case, then clearly show this on the plans. All other areas specified on the plans as "sidewalk" or "ADA-accessible ramp" would be expected to be constructed along with the other improvements.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #32 of the previous comment letter dated July 19, 2016. There are areas within the swale that significantly less than 2% longitudinal (i.e., running) slope, and in particular, near the southwest corner of the project along County Line Rd. This is a significant issue, and should be addressed.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
General Comment: The plans suffer from QA/QC issues, and there are concerns that adequate checking of the plans prior to plan submittal was not performed.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Engineer's Estimate: The line item for sedding, mulching, and ferilizer appeared very low based on previous estimates for projects of similar size and scope. It also appeared that tracer wire, tracer wire box in accordance with City standards, and other items required for the tracer wire installation on private sanitary sewer laterals was not included. Trench checks for sanitary sewer laterals were not included. Finally, grading for the Master Drainage Plan did not appear to be listed.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
09/28/2016
|
10/06/2016
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Plans required for the off-site road improvements along County Line Road per conditions of project approval (i.e. eastbound left turn lane)
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Street signs associated with Alabaster need to be relocated to the new alignment.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
06/14/2016
|
07/19/2016
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The typical section is not correct. CG-2 should be specified for a residential street. In addition, specify a compacted subgrade at 95% proctor beneath all subgrade layers.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.200 Master Drainage Plan: What is the depressed feature shown north of Lot 64, and how will it drain?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.201: The finish grade at the northwest corner of Lot 64 is 1010.55. This does not match the grading plan shown on Sheet C.200.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.200: The contour north of Lot 64 is labeled as 1012, and then 1013 just to the north of this label. Please reconcile.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.201: The finish grade at the northwest and northeast corners of Lot 52 does not match the grading plan shown on Sheet C.200.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
General Comment Concerning Sheet C.201 and C.200: The above comments are not an all-inclusive list of discrepancies. Please check all finish grades, and ensure they match.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
MBOEs should be specified for lots adjacent to field inlets, and adjacent to the detention basin. The MBOEs must be a minimum of 2 feet higher than the 100 water surface elevation.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.202: Please check the calculations of square feet and acres. It appears there are numerous discrepancies in the square footage versus the acreage. For instance, area F is called-out as 2797 square feet, which does not appear correct.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.202: Provide better labels for each area. It is very difficult to determine which area is being called-out.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
All Sheets: Please change the title to read "The Manor at Stoney Creek 2nd Plat".
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The erosion and sediment control plans, including the sediment basin, were absent from the submittal.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The Master Drainage Plan must show the limits of the 100 year water surface elevation. This should be in a graphic format, showing the horizontal limits of the 100 year water surface elevation.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.208: This sheet is not reviewable. The outlet structure is not labeled, and it is difficult to determine what storm lines are entering the basin.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Horizontal dimensions must be shown for the water quality feature.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The "Macro Storm Water Drainage Study" dated May 20, 2016 shows a crest elevation of the weir at 1008.0. This does not match the plans which show an elevation of 1006.5.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The "Macro Storm Water Drainage Study" dated May 20, 2016 shows the bottom elevation of the detention basin at 999.0. The grading plan shows 1000.0. Please reconcile.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Specific details concerning the detention basin outlet structure, including location, materials used, steel reinforcement, manhole frame and cover, steps, and proper labeling, were missing. As discussed in a previous comment, Sheet C.208 is not reviewable, and incomplete.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
All Stormwater Sheets (Plan and Profile): No utility crossings were shown. These plans would be considered incomplete based on this omission.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
All Stormwater Sheets (Plan and Profile): Hydraulic grade lines were not shown. Please show these on the profile view, along with the design storm.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
All Stormwater Sheets (Plan and Profile): The grading plan should be superimposed upon the plan view.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
All Stormwater Profile Views: The plans are not reviewable due to QA/QC issues. There are numerous instances of field inlet tops being "at grade", with openings on all sides, and hence the openings would be underground. There are also numerous instances of field inlets being underground as much as 3 feet, or above ground as much as 3 feet.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.302: The storm line from field inlet 2-6 should match the crown for the receiving pipe at field inlet 2-5. The same should be done for the line from field inlet 2-4 to 2-3.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.302: An existing field inlet is called out at station 0+00. The outgoing pipe should also be shown, with flowline elevations, pipe type and pipe size. The crown of the incoming pipe should be at or above the crown of the receiving pipe.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.304: 7.5'x15' of rip rap does not appear sufficient for proper energy dissipation for a 36" pipe.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.304: the pipe from curb inlet 6-5 to curb inlet 6-4 should match crowns on the receiving ends.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.301: What is the plan for energy dissipation for the 48" HDPE pipe at station 0+00 on Storm Line 5?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.301: A wider easement will be needed for the 42" pipe between Lot 56 and the future lots. Ten (10) feet would be the minimum required easement width on Lot 56.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Underdrains were missing at the sag points in the roadway. This would include station 2+20 on SW Merryman Dr., station 10+88 on SW Merryman Dr. (go from inlet to the next available inlet), station 1+50 on SW Alabaster Dr., and station 1+87 on SW Amethyst Dr.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Clearly specify which sidewalks and ADA-accessible ramps will be constructed during the subdivision improvements. This would include any sidewalk and ADA-accessible ramps along SW Grindstone Dr. near County Line, and SW Alabaster Dr. near County Line Rd.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.200: Clearly label the swale along County Line Rd. as being a minimum of 2% slope.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.200: It appears there will be lots with less than 2% grade in the rear yards. This would include Lots 70, 43, 44, and 45.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please provide a response letter to your resubmittal.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
06/14/2016
|
06/14/2016
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Add an end of road sign treatment for the dead end street.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Plans required for the off-site road improvements along County Line Road per conditions of project approval (i.e. eastbound left turn lane)
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Check the location of Alabaster at County Line. This roadway shall align with the planned intersection (e.g. existing westbound left-turn opening) per project approval. It appears to mis-aligned approximately 50' to the west.
|
|
|
|
