| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
Record Drawings Review
|
No Comments
|
12/05/2022
|
12/05/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
As-graded MDP Review
|
No Comments
|
11/17/2022
|
11/17/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
As-graded MDP Review
|
Corrections
|
11/04/2022
|
11/04/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Record Drawings Review
|
Corrections
|
10/19/2022
|
10/25/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
As-graded MDP Review
|
Corrections
|
10/18/2022
|
10/19/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
As-graded MDP Review
|
Corrections
|
10/14/2022
|
10/11/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
10/08/2021
|
10/07/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
10/08/2021
|
10/05/2021
|
|
|
Brad Cooley, P.E., RSPI
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
09/02/2021
|
08/26/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
08/11/2021
|
08/11/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
07/23/2021
|
07/22/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
05/26/2021
|
05/26/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
What is the purpose of Sheet C106? Is this mass grading on areas off-site?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Tract N appears to include an existing swale draining Monarch View subdivision. Fill is shown at the end of the cul-de-sac extending into Tract N, and may present a drainage issue to Monarch View. Recommend consideration of a re-design in this area to manage the stormwater.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
CLOMR-F shall be required prior to approval of the plans. LOMR-F shall be required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Substantial Completion.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Stream buffers should be shown on affected lots, and should mirror what is shown on the approved PDP. At a minimum, it must be shown on the Master Drainage Plan.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sidewalk is shown along Hook Rd. Is this a private sidewalk serving the subdivision?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please see plat comments concerning sidewalk along Crown Dr. Wouldn't it be better to place the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C115: Distance from the truncated domes to the gutter is just over 5.0 feet for both ramps. It would appear the domes need to be skewed to meet standards of less than or equal to 5 feet.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C115: The curb opening on the west side of the street appears to be greater than 1.5%.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C116: Turning spaces for both parallel ramps should be identified with elevation and slope callouts.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C117: The same comment applies to these two (2) parallel ramps. Slope and elevation callouts were missing on the turning space.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C116 and C117: A note is provided stating "max cross-slope of 4.5%" on the ADA routes across the roads. It would appear the slope of the roads is less than 1.5% in both cases. It might be better to refer the reader to the street profiles for actual slope rather than show a 4.5% max slope.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C129 contains a note about stream buffers not applying to this plat. This does not reconcile with the approved PDP.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It is our understanding that MBOEs will be established during the as-graded MDP phase of the project. Please be aware that as a general rule, 1 acre maximum upstream drainage area would be considered the cutoff before an MBOE is required for a particular lot, or adjacent to a emergency overflow swale. Overflow swale in this instance would be defined as a channel designed to manage the excess flow from an underground pipe system which surcharges less than 0.5 feet from the throat of a field inlet. If the underground system can manage the 100 year flows without surcharging less than 0.5 feet from the throat of the inlet, the upstream drainage area to that particular inlet can be subtracted, which may eliminate the need for an MBOE for those particular lots adjacent to the field inlet.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Recommend that all pipes be sized as described above, with the 100 year HGL no more than 0.5 feet from the throat of the inlet. This will help eliminate MBOEs (if desired) on some lots using the rationale described above.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The City has experienced several incidents where vegetation cannot be established in a timely manner. Is there a need for turf reinforcement mat in select locations, such as swales? Inexpensive options exist in terms of TRM, and we would recommend consideration to providing in select locations.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Approved with Conditions
|
05/20/2021
|
05/20/2021
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Can the street name Heartland Circle be changed to Heartland Road as a continuation of street in conformance with the Street Name Policy?
|
|
|
|
