| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
Record Drawings Review
|
No Comments
|
02/16/2024
|
02/16/2024
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Record Drawings Review
|
Corrections
|
02/01/2024
|
02/01/2024
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
10/19/2023
|
10/05/2023
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
10/09/2023
|
10/04/2023
|
|
|
Susan Barry, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
08/30/2023
|
08/30/2023
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
08/30/2023
|
08/29/2023
|
|
|
Susan Barry, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Approved with Conditions
|
08/07/2023
|
08/07/2023
|
|
|
Susan Barry, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Remove street name sign from on top of the STOP sign. Only have a street name on the entering leg.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
08/07/2023
|
08/07/2023
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please see separate markup pdf for corrections
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
06/30/2023
|
06/29/2023
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The sidewalk plan and ADA-accessible routes across the new entrance need additional revision. A separate markup of Sheet C.100 is being provided separately. Please refer to this sheet and update all sheets associated with these changes. The separate sheet should be used as a guide, and other alternatives may be possible. Please ensure all aspects of the Design and Construction Manual are adhered to during design, and call if there are issues with the design.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
06/30/2023
|
06/28/2023
|
|
|
Susan Barry, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Move STOP sign to the right of the exiting road.
Add DO NOT ENTER with ONE WAYS on top to the left side of that exiting road.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Add a KEEP RIGHT at the beginning of the island to direct exiting traffic.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Street name signs are to be upper and lower case letters. Move the street name to the entering roadway.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A waiver will be required for the intersection angle for exiting traffic. Please ensure that sight distance is adequate for exiting vehicles.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
06/24/2022
|
06/27/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Water line 2 at station 4+66 is very close to a storm line. No cradle or encasement is shown at this location, and there is concern about long term effects to the storm line. A cradle or encasement support appears warranted at this location.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
06/20/2022
|
06/20/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
08/02/2021
|
08/02/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
07/14/2021
|
07/14/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
07/14/2021
|
06/29/2021
|
|
|
Mike Weisenborn
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
06/29/2021
|
06/29/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
06/29/2021
|
06/28/2021
|
|
|
Brad Cooley, P.E., RSPI
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
06/18/2021
|
06/18/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #1 in the previous applicant letter dated May 25, 2021. Comment was not addressed concerning some of the ADA-accessible ramps. Examples were provided in previous emails, but were not utilized in your design. Turning space is still shown immediately adjacent to the curb and gutter. In addition, Detail 2 shows a shared ramp for both directions, which is no longer allowed.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
06/18/2021
|
06/15/2021
|
|
|
Brad Cooley, P.E., RSPI
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
05/25/2021
|
05/25/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Horizontal curve data missing.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
05/25/2021
|
05/25/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Detail 1 and 2 of the ADA-accessible ramp details do not meet the standards discussed in the previous comment letter in regard to the ramps shown with bi-drectional access. We provided examples to utilize in the design, all of which remove the turning space from the gutter area. The designs shown in the plans still incorporate a ramp down to a turning space, followed by an unneccesary and undesired climb out of the gutter area.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Bypass channel shows what appears to be an existing stilling basin just prior to exiting the property. The proposed improvements appear to show the elimination of this stilling basin. This will lead to increased erosion at the property line. Construction of a stilling basin appears warranted, and it is recommended that a design mirroring the Federal Highway Administration using rip rap to create a depressed area be utilized in the design to provide a stilling basin.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Turf reinforcement mat appears warranted for the bypass swale, and it is called-out in an obscure note that will likely be missed. Recommend a label in the vicinity of the swale to ensure this is not missed during construction.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Final restoration including within the erosion and sediment control plan does not appear to show any final restoration. Please see above comment concerning turf reinforcement mat. In addition to the bypass swale, are there other areas where turf reinforcement mat is needed?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.203: What is happening near Blackwell Rd.? The cross-slope is 8,5%, yet the callout shows 1.5% maximum cross-slope for the ADA-accessible route.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Detail 3 on Sheet C.205: Road is sloped at 8.5%, followed by an ADA-accessible route at 1.4%, followed by a 16% slope to Blackwell Rd. This is too steep.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.306: Spot check of several 100 year flow calculations revealed that the 1.25 factor was not applied. This will affect the 100 year HGL calculations within the pipe, and may have a bearing on whether MBOEs are necessary or not.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Underdrains are now labeled as requested in previous comment letter, but no specific detail is called-out other than "see detail". Please specify which detail is to be used.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
03/31/2021
|
04/01/2021
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Roadway Plan Sheets (Plan and Profile) were missing information required for review; e.g. horizontal alignment information was not shown.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Include signing plans for review.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
03/31/2021
|
03/31/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It would appear the two (2) detention basins should be utilized for temporary sediment collection.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It would appear the northeast storm pipe entering the northern detention basin will have a short residence time within the basin due to the proximity to the outlet structure. Can this entrance pipe be moved?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Downstream property owner to the west has already been in contact with the City concerning off-site migration of silt, sediment, trash, and other adverse impacts due to the proposed subdivision. Please provide increased diligence in this area, to mitigate the off-site migration of silt, sediment, trash, and to prevent erosion of their property.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Spot Elevation Sheet: Why are the items normally seen on a Master Drainage Plan shown on this sheet?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Detail 1 on the ADA-accessible ramp sheet shows a turning space adjacent to the curb which is no longer allowed. Provide a new design for the ramp which place the turning space outside this area. We can provide an example if desired.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Detail 2 of the ADA-accessible ramp detail proposes a bi-directional ramp at the apex of the curve. This is no longer allowed. A single direction ramp must be provided for each crossing, in alignment with the 5 foot wide ADA-route across the intersection.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Detail 4 on the ADA-accessible detail sheet proposes a turning space which does not appear compliant in terms of the turning space. Design slope appear to be greater than 1.5% in the diagonal direction using the diagonal elevation call-outs. Turning spaces must be designed with a slope no greater than 1.5% in any direction, not just two (2) dimensions.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
ADA-accessible ramp details shall include a dimension between the truncated dome to the back of curb. In no case shall this distance be greater than 5.00 feet.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
ADA-accessble ramp details shall include design slope call-outs to the second decimal place for all ramps. It appears there were missing slope call-outs, and in some cases, slopes which exceed the 7.50% design running slope were shown.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Detail 3 on the ADA-accessible ramp detail sheet shows a turning space which is non-compliant. All turning spaces shall be flat, as defined as less than 1.50% in any direction. A design slope greater than 1.50% appears to be shown as evidenced by the elevation call-outs. Slope call-outs were also missing.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Detail 5 on the ADA-accessible ramp detail sheet will be a high-maintenance design, prone to silt and sediment collecting at the bottom of the ramp due to flat slope. The bigger question is why the 7.50% ramp immediately adjacent, followed by the flat slope at bottom? We would suggest lengthening ramp to curb, and reduce the slope to a more accommodating design. It should be noted that truncated domes may be installed within a ramp. They are not required to be installed only in flat areas.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Although beneficial to include water and sanitary lines on these plans, please use standard drafting lineweights (e.g., lighter lineweight) to distinguish these features from relevant street and stormwater features covered by these plans. This is especially prevalant on the general stormwater layout sheet.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
If using rip rap, dimensions, material size, approximate volume, depth, geofabric, and all other necessary information is required to be explicitly shown on one of the plan views (i.e., not in the back of the plan set in table format). Finally, consideration should be given to other energy dissipation measures besides rip rap, especially considering the discharge point will be directed to a property owner with two (2) ponds that need protection.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Where pipe is installed in fill, cross-hatching shall be shown on the profile view along with sufficient notes about compacting the fill prior to trenching and installation of pipe. If additional clarification is needed, please contact me. This is the same comment we have provided in the past for different projects where pipe is installed in fill.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The discharge at 12-1 onto adjacent property to the west appears to show insufficient energy dissipation. In addition, the bypass channel will tie into this point, and additional design is required to ensure this area is adequately protected from erosion. Recommend a different energy dissipation method and structure be designed for this critical location. The Federal Highway Administration has examples of field-tested designs which can be utilized for this location.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It would appear there are better locations for the discharge point from the southwest detention basin. We would recommend locating the outlet point and associated energy dissipation devices further away from the property line than shown, or provide a different method for energy dissipation than rip rap.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan was missing from the plan set, although some of the sheets contain the needed information. We are showing a "spot elevation" plan sheet, and a grading plan, but as a document required by Ordinance, must be titled Master Drainage Plan. Please cleanup, because it appears much of the required detail is there, but scattered around throughout the sheets. Other issues with the sheets are the example of circles shown on the spot elevation sheet, with references to another sheet, which do not appear to make sense. (i.e., "see detail sheet C.205). Sheet C.205 contains no details. Finally, cover sheet index does not match what is shown on these sheets. No further review was performed at this time.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Plans were missing the detention basin grading sheets, with all required information necessary to construct and inspect these basins. A separate sheet should be provided for each basin. A note shall be provided stating these basins will be constructed with the erosion and sediment control measures. A note shall be provided stating that an as-built and accepted detention basin plan be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Substantial Completion, with as-built storage versus proposed storage.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Detention basin outlet structure detail sheets were missing. Anti-clogging measures shall be provided, and we would suggest a re-evaluation of previous anti-clogging measures for these basins, especially in regard to the water quality orifices. Placement of anti-clogging measures on the inside of a confined space may be required, but would require easy access from the top of the structure to rake the perforated riser after rain events.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Ensure all sheets match the index on the cover sheet. This would include the sheet name, sheet number, and and sequencing within the plan set. Our copy had issues with the index not matching the subsequent sheets.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Storm Line 12 profile view is missing the HGL for the design storms.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Some of the discharge points into the two (2) detention basins are shown with excessive slope, which will create supercritical conditions at the point of discharge. Normal procedure is to lessen the slope prior to discharge by installing storm line and box lower, and achieving the "dogleg" effect to create a hydraulic jump within the pipe. Was this evaluated? This will help with water quality, erosion, and maintenance by the HOA.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
HGLs are shown for storm lines entering detention basins, assuming free release of stormwater into the basins and no submerged pipe. This is an incorrect assumption, since the discharge will be submerged during detention basin operation during the various storm events. Evaluation and presentation on the profile view, as well as the stormwater calculation sheet is required.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A swale plan sheet is required for the swale along the northwest part of the project, either as a separate sheet or on the Master Drainage Plan. Swale start and stop locations should be shown, with cross-sections at an appropriate distance to be determined by the engineer, along with any appropriate flow calcualtions, depth calculations, and freeboard calculations for the 100 year event.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Underdrains are required at the low points, tied to the curb inlets. Please show their location, and specify which method will be used. A chart is presented within the details, but no specific design is called-out on the sheet.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Street Profile Views: Were the slopes at stop-controlled intersections coordinated with the ADA-accessible route details? If not, this shall be required. It appears at least two (2) profile views do not match what is shown for the ADA-accessible route at Cherrybark Cir., and Blackwell/Woodland Oak Dr. intersection.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Detention Basiin (north): Is the receiving storm system able to manage the nominal 100 year storm event without surcharging? Hydraflow Hydrographs does not appear to be capable of making this determination, becauee it assumes the discharge pipe is flowing freely at the end. If not, are you relying on the emergency spillway to provide this capacity? This may require a waiver to the Design and Construction Manual. Emergency spillways are not designed for the 100 year nominal event, but rather, the clogged condtion/zero available storage event.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please verify the 24 inch discharge pipe from the southwest basin is able to convey the 100 year event without utilizing the emergency spillway. The model run appears to confirm, but wanted to ask the question.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Due to the critical nature and importance, a separate plan sheet shall be required for the bypass channel. This plan sheet should provide the plan view, profile view, and section view at selected intervals. HGLs shall be shown for the 100 year event, along with design flows before and after development. Design peak flow should slightly decrease, due to the diversion of a portion of the drainage area to the detention basin.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
There appear to be conflicts with the District water main near the north end of the north detention basin. A pressured water main within a dam is a risky design.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The Macro Storm Water Drainage Study was unsealed. It also provided schematic drawings of the outlet structures which did not make it into the plan set. The schematic drawings are incomplete in terms of anti-clogging measures, especially in regard to the 1 inch perforated risers. It also provided details of the dam construction which also did not make it into the plan set.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A pavement section view shall be required for the Blackwell Rd./Woodland Oak Dr. segment. It is recommended that at least two (2) typical pavement sections be provided, or one (1) typical section with sufficient notes concerning the variable width based on the plan view.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Detail 6 on the ADA-accessible ramp details shows the ramp entering at an angle greater than 90 degrees deflection. The angle shall be 90 degrees or less to avoid the odd turn to align with the ramp.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
100 year water surface elevation within each basin shall be shown in numeric and graphic format on the Master Drainage Plan and the Detention Basin plan sheets. It shall include the nominal and 100% clogged/zero available storage conditions.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Exhibit within the stormwater study for the north detention basin outlet structure shows an emergency overflow weir, but this would not be considered an emergency overflow weir. If the primary outlet works become clogged, this would not function in the emergency condition since it is a closed top. It also appears the stormwater study did not account for this feature in the pond setup table.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Stormwater report: Pond setup tables do not match the exhibit for the outlet structures contained within the report for the following items: 1) emergency spillway for southwest detention basin crest elevation, and 2) 12 inch orifice elevations.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Were incoming pipe flowlines (i.e., pipes entering the detention basins) checked to ensure the slopes shown on the detention basin bottoms can be achieved?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It appears the majority of the southwest detention basin dam top shall be utilized for the emergency spillway. This is the highest part of the dam considering the height from undisturbed ground to the top of the dam, and not a suitable location for an emergency spillway. This design should be re-evaluated, with a different location which is able to tie into the new bypass channel. Alternatively, the emergency spillway can be incorporated into the primary outlet works. This alternative design would typically include an open top, with a domed grate. It must be sized for the clogged condition/zero available storage event.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The emergency spillway is shown across the majority of the north detention basin dam. Please see previous comments concerning this issue. It is recommended that primary outlet works be combined with emergency spillway, if the downstream system can manage the flows.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
As indicated in the stormwater study, a waiver shall be required for the peripheral areas noted. A separate summary report (in this case, likely a design memo and exhibit) shall be prepared, along with the standard waiver template.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A detention basin Operation and Maintenance Manual should be developed prior to completion of the project. This document should be developed for the HOA, and a copy submitted to the City for concurrence.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Technical Release 60 offers various examples of emergency spillway design. It is suggested this document be reviewed prior to a re-design of the emergency spillways. Although TR-60 would not apply to this particular dam, the concepts are relevant. As presently designed, the emergency spillway is the top of the dam for all practical purposes, and is designed to overtop.
|
|
|
|
