| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
As-graded MDP Review
|
No Comments
|
03/11/2025
|
03/07/2025
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
As-graded MDP Review
|
No Comments
|
09/19/2023
|
09/14/2023
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Record Drawings Review
|
Corrections
|
06/14/2022
|
06/15/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
As-graded MDP Review
|
No Comments
|
06/14/2022
|
06/15/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
10/29/2021
|
10/29/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
11/11/2020
|
11/10/2020
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
11/11/2020
|
11/09/2020
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
10/16/2020
|
10/15/2020
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Swale 1, 2, and 3: Please provide clear references to the swales on the Master Drainage Plan, which include the Sheet number, the general location of the swale, etc. The swale details on Sheets C106 through C109 are thorough, but lack overall context.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan Sheet C126: Please consider grouping the swale detail sheets described above near the Master Drainage Plan. At a minimum, please show the general location of the swales on the Master Drainage Plan, along with Sheet numbers for reference.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Lots 60 through 67 appear to be shown with MBOEs below the 100 year water surface elevation within the rear yard swale. This swale would appear to be functioning as a "diversion berm" and swale. While the MBOE might be allowed below the 100 year water surface elevation within the "diversion berm" and swale, certain conditions are required for this to be allowed. Typically, the "diversion berm" should be designed to provide a minimum of 2.0 feet of freeboard between the calculated 100 year water surface elevation, and the top of the berm. It is unclear whether this requirement has been met. Please verify.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Lots 42 through 44 appear to show the MBOEs below the 100 year water surface elevation. Please see the above comment concerning this situation. If constructing a "diversion berm" and swale, the same criteria should be met for its design.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C115: The ADA-accessible route across Clayton Place appears to be designed with a higher slope on the east side of the crown (i.e., 1.67%). It would appear the ADA-accessible ramp could be redesigned slightly to achieve the 1.5% slope required by the Design and Construction Manual. If not, please discuss why this cannot be achieved.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C116: The same comment discussed above pertains to the east side of the ADA-accessible route across Rivengate Place. This portion of the ADA-accessible route is shown with a design cross-slope of 2.37%, whereas the Design and Construction Manual requires a design slope of 1.5%.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C117: The same comment above pertains to the ADA-accessible route across Rutherford Dr. If 1.5% cannot be achieved, please discuss why.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
10/16/2020
|
10/07/2020
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Add City Typical End of Road Sign Treatment (e.g. 4 evenly spaced 18" Object Markers OM4-3) at the end of all dead end streets.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The proposed stop sign and street name sign installation at the SE corner of Clayton Place/Holdbrooks Drive should be removed from the plans. The 1st Plat should have installed stop signs and street name signs for this intersection; with stop signs on the NE and SW corners for stop control on Holdbrooks Drive.
|
|
|
Osage Drive Sta. 16+22.74, Existing Tie-In, has different profile grades 1.50% Proposed vs. 1.48% Existing
|
|
|
|
